Karnataka High Court
Mr A Imran vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27549
WP No. 24657 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24657 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. A. IMRAN
S/O. AMAN BASHA,
ADVOCATE,
ENROLMENT NO.KAR 2347/2015,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT FARZOO OIL STORE,
B.M. ROAD, ANDERSONPET,
KGF-563122,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BENGALURU
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. JHA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. B SUDHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
Location: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
HIGH
COURT OF NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560003.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
K.G.F, K.G.F. 563122
5. SRI. GOPI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
CONSTABLE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27549
WP No. 24657 of 2017
6. SRI. RAMESH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
CONSTABLE
7. SRI. VENKATA CHALAPATHI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
CONSTABLE
8. SRI VENKATRAM
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
CONSTABLE
9. SRI GAJENDRA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
CONSTABLE
10. MR. MANJU
INCHARGE INSPECTOR
ANDERSONPET POLICE STATION
ALL ARE POLICE OFFICIALS
ANDERSONPET POLICE STATION,
K.G.F.-563122.
11. KUMARASEN
SON OF LATE KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
12. GOPINATH
SON OF LATE KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SL.NO.11 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT
THIRUMALAI LANE,
B.M. ROAD, ANDERSONPET,
K.G.F.-563113.
13. SMT. SHEELA
W/O SAMARESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.55, 2ND STAGE,
GOWTHAM NAGAR,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27549
WP No. 24657 of 2017
ROBERTSONPET,
K.G.F.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 14.09.2018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;
SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.11 TO
13;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7, 9 AND 10 BUT
UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NO.8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL ANDERSONPET POLICE
STATION/ RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 OF WHAT BASIS, THEY HAVE
TAKEN THE PETITIONER TO THEIR CUSTODY ON WHAT AUTHORITY
OR PROOF AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution initiated against him by the Andersonpet police station in Crime No.84/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. An action to prosecute the petitioner was initiated based on written information dated 26.05.2017 -4- NC: 2023:KHC:27549 WP No. 24657 of 2017 furnished by the respondent No.13 alleging that on 26.05.2017 she had been to her sister's (Smt. Anitha) house, at Andersonpet. She was allegedly informed by her brother-in-law that the accused being his neighbour was trying to be intimate with his wife. She claimed that both of them were counselled. She claimed that on 26.05.2017 at 4.00 p.m., the accused confronted her brother-in-law as to why he was not allowing his wife to talk to the accused and physically assaulted him. She alleged that she, her sister and other neighbours intervened and pacified them. In that regard, the brother-in-law of respondent No.13 had lodged a complaint with Andersonpet police station. The accused on coming to know of the complaint again went to the house on 26.05.2017 at 9.30 p.m. and was pounding the entrance door of the house. When respondent No.13 and her brother-in-law opened the door, the accused barged into the house and reprimanded respondent No.13 and her brother-in-law for lodging the complaint and assaulted the respondent No.13 and outraged her modesty by toughing them inappropriately and calling them -5- NC: 2023:KHC:27549 WP No. 24657 of 2017 prostitutes. The accused thereafter assaulted the brother- in-law of respondent No.13 and hearing the cries of respondent No.13, the neighbours came to the spot and intervened. However, the accused allegedly showed a boulder and threatened to kill him. However, respondent No.13 claimed that she and her brother-in-law did not suffer any bloody wounds but her night dress was torn by the accused.
3. Based on this written information, the jurisdictional police registered Crime No.84/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. Long thereafter i.e., on 31.05.2017, the petitioner/accused is stated to have filed a private complaint before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Lokayukta stating that his client Smt. Anitha had a family dispute with her husband Sri. Gopinath, which she entrusted to him. He claimed that Smt. Anitha had lodged a complaint against her husband at Andersonpet police station. He claimed that Smt. Anitha -6- NC: 2023:KHC:27549 WP No. 24657 of 2017 informed him that the police used to go to her house and take her to the station and torturing her to withdraw the complaint. Thus, he went to the station whereat he was abused by the police who spoke ill of the fraternity of advocates. He claimed that when he protested that he would lodge a complaint with the Advocate Association, he was assaulted and detained. Thus, he prayed that action be initiated against the police staff who allegedly assaulted them. He claimed that he was treated at General Hospital, KGF and Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru. Since the complaint of the petitioner/accused was not entertained, he filed a private complaint.
4. Being aggrieved by the criminal prosecution initiated against him, the petitioner/accused is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is framed in a false case and that he, as a professional, had visited the police station on 26.05.2017 whereat, he was assaulted by a group of -7- NC: 2023:KHC:27549 WP No. 24657 of 2017 policemen, who were supporting the opposite party. He submitted that the injuries on the petitioner/accused indicated that it was the petitioner/accused, who was injured and not the complainant or her brother-in-law or her sister. He therefore, submitted that the entire case is cooked up by the complainant to launch a false prosecution. He has also placed on record the treatment availed by the petitioner/accused at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru as well as at the General Hospital, KGF. He therefore, submits that the jurisdictional police could not have entertained the complaint. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610] and contended that the jurisdictional police could not have simply entertained the complaint but must have applied their mind to check the veracity.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that a perusal -8- NC: 2023:KHC:27549 WP No. 24657 of 2017 of the complaint lodged by the complainant clearly indicated that there were clear overt acts against the accused/petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. He therefore, submits that the contentions urged by the petitioner are all questions of fact that have to be established at a trial and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.13 supported the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the defacto complainant.
9. A perusal of the allegations in complaint does indicate all they constitute offences punishable under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The contention of the petitioner that he had gone to the jurisdictional police -9- NC: 2023:KHC:27549 WP No. 24657 of 2017 to help one of his clients who had lodged a complaint and that at the police station, he was assaulted, are all defences that have to be established by the petitioner/accused at a trial. He certainly cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at naught the criminal prosecution initiated against him. The reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K. Basu, supra, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as the investigation is not yet undertaken and therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings would not arise.
In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21