Karnataka High Court
Sri Amrutharaj vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.No.28011/2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
SRI AMRUTHARAJ,
S/O LATE T.ANAND RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
REVENUE INSPECTOR,
WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF
ARO, WEST MARKET,
AND ALSO IN THE OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
ADVERTISING DEPARTMENT,
NR SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS.V, ADV.,)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE -560 001.
2. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
YESHWANATHAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BANGALORE -560 032.
-2-
4. SRI B.R. MURALIDHAR,
S/O B.H. RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
NO.14, 1ST STAGE, 1ST MAIN,
PRANAVA COMPLEX,
MATHIKERE,
BNAGALORE - 54.
WORKING AS
IN-CHARGE HEAD MASTER,
BBMP CORPORATION GIRLS
HIGH SCHOOL, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE - 54.
5. SRI GOVINDAIAH .R,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RTD., NGEF EMPLOYEE,
NO. 101/13, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE,
GOKAL, BANGALORE-560 032.
6. SRI SHIVAKUMAR .P,
S/O PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT RANGA NILAYA,
NO. 87-4, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
RNS COLONY,
NAGASHETTY HALLI,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-84.
7. SMT. MANJUSHREE,
W/O NAGARAJ.H,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
NO. 456, 4TH CROSS,
BALAJINAGAR, LAGGERE,
BANGALORE-68. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 TO R3)
-3-
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIME NO.107/12, ON
THE FILE OF YESHWANTHPURA POLICE, BANGALORE, AND
QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR, & THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN CRIME
No.107/2012, ON THE FILE OF YESHWANTHPURA POLICE,
BANGALORE & VIDE ANN-F, F1, & F2.
THIS W.P COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused in Crime No.107/2012 (FIR No.107/2012) registered with Yeshwanthapura Police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 506B read with Section 34 of IPC., pending on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR., on the ground that on earlier two occasions, Police has filed 'C' report and thereafter, they are trying to reopen the proceedings registered in FIR No.107/2012 and have issued Police notice to petitioner herein for appearance with reference to investigation into the offences alleged therein.
-4-
2. Admittedly, the complaint in FIR No.107/2012 is registered at the instance of 4th respondent herein with reference to the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 506B read with Section 34 of IPC. In support of that argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the matter of Sri K. Ramasubbu Vs. The State and another disposed of on 11.11.1986, wherein further investigation ordered by the learned Magistrate at the instance of Police, into a matter which was earlier closed by the learned Magistrate on the basis of 'C' report / final report filed by Police to the effect that the complaint was registered against the petitioner therein on 'mistake of fact', is quashed by the High Court. In the said Judgment while observing that the prosecution ought to have challenged the earlier order of the learned Magistrate before reopening the case, the investigation is quashed. Relying upon the said judgment, an attempt is being made to canvass the argument that once a proceeding is closed by filing 'C' report, same cannot be reinvestigated.
-5-
3. In the instant case, 'C' report was filed on earlier two earlier occasions by the Police for lack of material available to conduct investigation into the offences alleged against the petitioner. In both the 'C' reports, it is not stated that the proceeding is completely closed against the petitioner in not making out a prima facie ingredient in respect of the offence alleged against him. On the contrary, it is for want of lead to take investigation further, Police have filed 'C' report, which in technical sense, cannot be taken as proceeding is closed for ever. In fact, the judgment rendered by Madras High Court, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in K. Ramasubbu`s case (referred supra) itself would support the case of prosecution that further investigation can be done. The relevant portion, which supports the case of the prosecution reads as under:-
"Law is well-settled that the police has the right to reopen the investigation even after the submission of the charges under S. 173 Cr.P.C. if such facts come to light. The -6- Police has the right to file a supplementary charge-sheet after a final report under S. 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. If a police-officer laying charge gets further information, he can still investigate and lay further chargesheet. If fresh facts come to light after a final report, Magistrate`s permission is not necessary for further investigation. So in this case the police officer was right in bringing to the notice of the Sub-Magistrate that the charge was laid against a wrong person."
4. However, in the aforesaid case, 'C' report was accepted for the reason that the complaint filed against the petitioner therein was on mistaken fact and there was nothing available for prosecution to investigate into the matter. In the said circumstances, such view was taken by the Investigating Officer, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The facts in the present case being totally different from that of K. Ramasubbu`s case (supra) and no such mistaken fact being expressed in 'C' report, -7- it cannot be said that the Police have no right to investigate the case against the petitioner.
5. In that view of the matter, the present petition does not merit admission. Accordingly, same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma