Karnataka High Court
L.R. Bhuvaneswara Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1384 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
L.R.BHUVANESWARA REDDY
S/O CHENNARAMACHANDRA REDDY
@ RAMA CHENNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.176, HI-TECH CITY,
KUKKATAPALLI, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA - 500 072. ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI N.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI BALASUBRAMANYA B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY C.C.B. POLICE,
BENGALURU - 560 072
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGLAURU - 560 001.
2. RAJENDRAKUMAR
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, C.C.B.,
SPECIAL ENQUIRE SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2016 IN S.C.NO.110/2012
PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-64) AND THE
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.12 seeking to quash the order dated 04.05.2016 in S.C.No.110 of 2012, which is pending for trial against him on the file of LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-64) and discharge the petitioner/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas relating to the aforesaid crime, the case in S.C.No.380 of 2010 is pending for trial against the remaining accused. But the petitioner herein is a split-up accused No.12 in Crime No.99 of 2009. Subsequent to tracing of the petitioner 3 herein, split-up charge-sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer in S.C.No.110 of 2012 for the offences, which reflected in the charge-sheet.
2. Heard Shri N.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.12 through video conference and the learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1/State who is physically present before the Court.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 21.08.2009 at about 4.15 p.m., because of a message received from Control room, one M.K.Manjanna went near the Lake and found a dead body of an unknown person and on the report of M.K.Manjanna, a case was registered in U.D.R.No.19 of 2009 at Gangammana Gudi Police Station, Bengaluru and on 02.09.2009, one Manjannanavar also found a dead body in U.D.R.No.14 of 2009 at Bagaluru Police Station, Bengaluru. Later on, both the cases were transferred to C.C.B., Bengaluru for investigation and consequently, the 4 case in Crime No.99 of 2009 came to be registered and laid the charge-sheet against the accused in C.C.No.32158 of 2009 and so also in C.C.No.36817 of 2010 and C.C.No.32158 of 2009 in respect of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C., which reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the Investigating Agency in Crime No.99 of 2009. But the petitioner herein was absconding and during the course of the investigation, he was traced and based upon the voluntary statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.12 in the aforesaid crime. Thereafter, split-up charge- sheet has been laid against accused No.12 in S.C.No.110 of 2012. The co-accused in S.C.No.380 of 2010 have been facing trial and almost all the witnesses, i.e., PWs.1 to 31 have been examined on the part of the prosecution. But none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution relating to the overt-acts attributed against the accused persons and no materials are recovered against the 5 petitioner herein. As this contention is also taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner but the entire materials collected by the Investigating Agency do not make out any prima-facie case against the petitioner herein that he had been involved with the other accused in committing the alleged offences. But based upon the voluntary statements of the co-accused, the petitioner herein arraigned as accused No.12 and then proceeded with the case for trial in S.C.No.110 of 2012.
The learned Senior Counsel contended that the co- accused have been facing trial in S.C.No.380 of 2010 and in that case, almost all the witnesses, i.e., PWs.1 to 31 have been examined on the part of the prosecution and none of the witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the petitioner in the said case and therefore, sought to allow the petition.
In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. 6 Muniswamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489; (2008)10 SCC 394 and 2015(1) AICLR 2019 (Ashok B.Dani Vs. State of Karnataka.
The contents of the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel are squarely applicable to the present case as contended. But in the judgment reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, it is specifically stated that "it is clear from Section 227 of the new Code that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is no sufficient ground to proceeding against the accused. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record its reasons is to enable the superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused".
In the instant case, the co-accused are facing trial in S.C.No.380 of 2010 and several witnesses have been 7 examined and also several documents were also marked on part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of the entire criminal proceedings does not arise, relating to appreciation of the evidence on both sides, i.e., examination-in-chief on the part of the prosecution and so also the defence theory, which is taken up by the defence counsel relating to cross- examination of PWs-1 to 31, if cross-examination has been done, it is the domain vested with the Trial Court and it has to appreciate the evidence on record inclusive of the exhibited documents in accordance with law.
4. The learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1/State submitted that the petitioner herein arraigned as accused No.12 and a split-up charge-sheet has been laid against him by the Investigating Agency relating to the case in Cr.No.99 of 2009 and he is required to face trial in S.C.No.110 of 2012 and moreover, the co-accused already facing up of trial in S.C.No.380 of 2010 and several 8 witnesses have also been examined on part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Merely because the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said at this stage that there is no substantive evidence, but for appreciation of the evidence available on record either on the prosecution side or on the defence theory, it is the domain vested in the Trial Court and on this premise, the learned HCGP sought to dismiss the petition.
5. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and so also the counter arguments made by the learned HCGP appearing for the State and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is clearly indicated that the petitioner herein who arraigned as accused No.12 in S.C.No.110 of 2012 relating to the case in Cr.No.99 of 2009 is pending for trial. But the co-accused are facing up of trial in S.C.No.380 of 2010. In the instant petition, it cannot be 9 said that whether there are any prima-facie materials that finds place against the accused and whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused or not, by facilitating the evidence inclusive of marking of the documents. It is the duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence in respect of the offences leveled against the accused persons, but at this stage it cannot be stated specifically that the prosecution is not able to prove the case against the accused.
Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. relates to submission of report of the Police Officer on completion of investigation. This provision empowers the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay by following all requisite criteria which have been stated in detail in the aforesaid provision. But it is necessary to state the nature of information, the offences which appear to have been committed by the accused on the basis of which the accused were apprehended and such other 10 requisite conditions, which is specifically stated in this provision has to be maintained by the Investigating Agency, in order to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. Thus, the Investigating Officer shall collect all relevant documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely on the material facts and also the allegation made against the accused. Such report in respect of a case registered against the accused to which Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. applies, shall be submitted. Subsequent to compliance of all requisite conditions in the aforesaid provision of law, the Investigating Officer shall forward the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate along with the final report, in order to proceed against the accused.
During investigation, even the I.O. has recorded the statements of the witnesses as contemplated under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also cited in the charge-sheet as to whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the 11 accused. But in the instant case, the Investigating Agency has applied all the requirements under this provision in order to investigate and to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. Therefore, the material evidence has been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation in order to proceed further by the concerned competent court to prove the guilt of the accused.
Therefore, at this stage, it cannot arise in detail to distinguish the facts or otherwise to dispute the material evidence which were collected by the I.O. But it is a domain vested with the prosecution to facilitate worthwhile evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it requires for refraining from dwelling in detail of the materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation.
But in the instant case, almost all requirements as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. have been complied with. Therefore, it does not require any detailed discussion relating to the materials collected by the I.O. 12 and so also the contention which has been taken by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner for seeking the relief so as to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
However, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is an inherent power that has to be exercised by this Court and it should exercised judicially, judiciously, sparingly and cautiously. If not, certainly it would result in a miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. It is not only for the accused, it is equally for the victim / complainant as well. Balance has to be maintained while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This observation is made in this petition, keeping in view the strenuous contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the counter made by the learned HCGP for the State.
In the instant case, none of the witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the petitioner herein in committing the alleged offences as contended, but it is the domain vested with the Trial Court to appreciate the 13 evidence in S.C.No.110 of 2012 even by adopting the evidence, which has already been subjected to examination in respect of the co-accused in S.C.No.380 of 2010. Therefore, in this petition, quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in S.C.No.110 of 2012 does not arise. It is appropriate to state that the case in Cr.No.99 of 2009 is of the year 2009 and moreover, the case against the petitioner herein is split-up and the Investigating Officer has laid the charge-sheet in S.C.No.110 of 2012 wherein this accused is required to face the trial. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the case in S.C.No.380 of 2010 and take up the case in S.C.No.110 of 2012 relating to the petitioner herein arraigned as accused No.12. It is the prerogative vested with the prosecution alone whether to examine the witnesses who have already been examined on the part of the prosecution in S.C.No.380 of 2010 relating to the co-accused in Crime No.99/2009.
In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
14
ORDER
i) The petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.12 is hereby dismissed.
ii) The Trial Court in S.C.No.110 of 2012 is directed to expedite the case in respect of accused No.12 along with the case in S.C.No.380 of 2010 in respect of the co-
accused in accordance with law.
iii) If the case in S.C.No.110 of 2012 is clubbed along with S.C.No.380 of 2010, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of both the cases within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving an opportunity to both sides, in accordance with law.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order for compliance.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE DH