Karnataka High Court
Kiran Vittaalsa Baddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687
CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101112 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. KIRAN VITTAALSA BADDI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SORABAD MATH GALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA.
2. VITTALSA BADDI,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: SORABAD MATH GALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA.
3. JAYASHREE BADDI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed by
R/O: SORABAD MATH GALLI, HUBBALLI,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
4. RAJU BADDI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SORABAD MATH GALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA.
5. VINAYA W/O. ANAND HABIB,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: SORABAD MATH GALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687
CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PSI HUBBALLI TOWN POLICE
STATION HUBBALLI, BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH - 580 010.
2. HIRALALSA
S/O. LAXMANA KATAWE,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SUBHASH NAGAR,
OLD HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1;
SRI G.S.MOT, ADVOCATE FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 IN C.C.NO. 4284/2021
(HUBBALLI TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO 46/2016) PENDING
ON THE FILE OF JMFC-I COURT, HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/SEC. 304(B), 323, 506, 498A, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687
CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.4284/2021 arising out of Crime No.46/2016 are back at the doors of this Court again on a procedural infirmity by the concerned Court in taking cognizance of the offence against these petitioners.
2. Heard Sri V.M. Sheelavant, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri G.S. Mot, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The complainant's husband and other family members get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.46/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC. The police after investigation submit a 'B' report before the concerned Court. The complainant files a protest petition. The Magistrate records the sworn statement of the complainant and then directs further investigation in the matter. The police again -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 investigate and file a second 'B' report. The complainant then does not file a protest petition but the advocate of the complainant so does i.e., filing of the protest petition. That action is called in question before this Court in Crl.P.No.100023/2022, which comes to be disposed on 16.02.2022 by the following order:
"3. To the said B summary report, the complainant files his protest petition, for which the learned Magistrate directs reinvestigation in the matter in terms of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. After the said reinvestigation, the police again file a B report, to which the protest petition is not filed by the complainant, but by the counsel for the complainant, which is contrary to law.
4. The admission position in the case at hand is that the complainant who had to file a protest petition to the B report had not filed any such petition. But the counsel who represented the complainant has on his own volition filed a protest petition. This could not have been done by the counsel representing the complainant. The Magistrate has taken cognizance after rejecting the B summary report in the said protest petition preferred by the advocate. In the light of the protest petition itself by the advocate is contrary to law, the action of the learned Magistrate in the aftermath of such protest petition are all a nullity in law. Therefore, the matter requires to be reconsidered from the stage of consideration on the filing of the B report.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 10.11.2021 taking
cognizance of the offences in
C.C.No.4284/2021 by the learned JMFC I-Court, Hubballi, stands quashed.
iii) The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to issue notice on the B summary report to the complainant, hear the complainant and then pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law."
4. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Magistrate to pass orders on the protest petition in accordance with law. The result of the remand is the impugned order. The impugned order of taking cognizance and issuing summons is as follows:
"This case has been filed by the complainant by name Hiralasa Katwe, U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC. In this case matter was refereed to jurisdiction police station for the inquiry U/s 156(3) of Crpc. The concerned investigation Officers has filed B report in this case with a contention that no materials found in this case to attract the provisions U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC R/W 149 of IPC.
Where as the complainant has filed Protest petition and he recorded his sworn statement along with his brother sworn statement. They have taken contention that, complainant is having suspense on his daughters husband and his relatives and he interested to contest the matter and establish the case against the accused -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 persons alleged by him U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC R/W 149 of IPC. As per the brief facts of the case the deceased Deepa marriage was solemnized with the A-1 on 13.05.2014 and she hanged herself on 02.12.2015 in her matrimonial home. The death of victim within 7 years from the date of marriage. Therefore this case false within the definition of sec. 304(B) of IPC and the said section is triable by the District and Sessions Court. The definition speaks as follow; Sec.304(B) 'Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry such death shall he called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death'. In this case the victim has died within one and half of the year of her from her marriage date i.e., 02-12-2015 deceased victim has put her life and end. Thereby facts of the case attracts provisions of 498A as its speak that victim was forced to put to end to her life on cause to injury to her body or limb due to harassment caused by the victim husband and his relatives. The essential ingredient Sec. 498-a she should be tagged in marital relationship with the one of the accused in this case also the deceased victim was married with the accused no.1 of this case. Therefore the victim is in relationship of the marriage with the accused no.1 and she was subjected to cruelty by the husband and his relatives prior to her death and it was reported by her to her parents i.e., the complainant and she was forced to commit suicide. Accordingly she died on 02-12- 2015 as per the records placed before me. Hence there are sufficient materials on record to take cognizance. Hence thereby I proceed to pass the following:
//ORDER// Acting U/sec.190 of Cr.P.C. cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec. 304(B), 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/w sec.149 of IPC is taken against the accused persons.
Office is hereby directed registered the case in CC and issue summons to accused. Call on 20-12-2021"-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023
5. A perusal at the order would indicate procedural infirmity, yet again by the concerned Court. It becomes opposite to refer to the Coordinate Bench in the case Dr. Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasasntha and another1 wherein the Coordiante Bench has laid down the following guidelines:
"5. The procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law. It is well recognized principle of law that, once the police submit 'B' Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the court has to examine the contents of 'B' Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the court has got some options to be followed, which are,-
i) The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) 1 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal (second head note.)
ii) If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 'B' Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of 'B' Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process.
iii) If the court is of the opinion that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court has to reject the 'B' Summary Report.
iv) After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C.
v) If the court is of the opinion that the materials collected by the police in the report submitted under section 173 of Cr.p.c. are not so sufficient, however, there are sufficient materials which disclose that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused, the court can still take cognizance of the offence/s under section -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 190 read with 200 Cr.p.c. on the basis of the original complaint or the protest petition as the case may be. After taking cognizance and recording sworn statement of the complainant and statements of witnesses if any and also looking into the complainant/Protest Petition and contents therein, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that, to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations further inquiry is required and he thinks fit to post pone the issue of process he can still direct the investigation under section 202 of Cr.p.c., to be made by a Police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit, to investigate and submit a report, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the above eventuality, care should be taken that, the case shall not be referred to the Police under section 156(3) of Cr.p.c, once the magistrate takes cognizance and starts inquiring into the matter himself.
vi) After taking such report under section 202 of Cr.P.C., and looking to the entire materials on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are no grounds to proceed against the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be.
vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, on examination of the allegations made in the Protest Petition or in the complaint, as the case may be and also after perusal of the sworn statement, then he has to record his opinion judiciously, and issue summons to the accused by exercising power u/s.204 of Cr.P.C..
But, none of these procedures have been followed by the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, as could be seen from the records, the learned Magistrate even without
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 rejecting the 'B' Summary report and without taking cognizance of the offences, but after going through the contents of the Protest Petition has directly provided opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn statement. On the basis of the contents of the Protest Petition, and after relying upon the contents of the Protest Petition and the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has rejected the 'B' Summary Report which virtually amounts to putting the horse behind the Cart."
6. The Coordinate Bench has clearly held as to how the concerned Court should deal with the report so filed before it. None of these five postulates appear to have been followed, in the case at hand.
7. Repeatedly the concerned Court is committing mistakes and leading the petitioners to this Court time and again. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Dr.Ravikumar supra and pass necessary orders in accordance with law on the protest petition.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1687 CRL.P No. 101112 of 2023 ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The order dated 03.05.2023 passed in C.C. No.4284/2021 on the file of JMFC-I, Hubballi, stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back at the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders bearing in mind the observations made in the aforesaid order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88