Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavaraju vs Police Superintendent on 8 September, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRL P.No.4456/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O. LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER
GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL
YARAGANAHALLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT.. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.
VISHWAJITH RAI, ADV.)
AND:
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT
POLICE DIVISION,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
MYSORE CITY
MYSORE - 10. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR
LOKAYUKTHA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11/2010 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 344 OF CR.P.C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
-2-
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.11/2010 pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 344 of Cr.P.C.
2. There is no dispute that the present petitioner is the complainant in Special Case No.50/2007 registered against the accused person therein for the offence punishable under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently when the trial was held PWs.1 to 7 were examined in the said case and this petitioner was examined as PW.1 and documents Ex.P1 to P16 were marked along with the material objects 1 to 10. It appears that PW.1 and another shadow witness PW.3 turned hostile to the prosecution. Therefore the learned trial Judge who tried the said case in Spl.Case No.50/2011 was of the opinion that proceedings shall be initiated against PWs.1 and 3 under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. He passed such orders and in pursuance of the -3- said order a separate case has been registered against this petitioner and another in C.C.No.11/2010 which is pending on the file of the III Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Mysore.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submits that PW.3 has already approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.10/2010 which was also pending on the file of the III Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Mysore. Considering all the relevant material on record, this Court was pleased to quash the said proceedings initiated under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. against PW.3 in Crl.P.No.4455/2012 vide order dated 9.4.2013. He contends that PW.1 also stands on the same footing and the grounds urged before this Court are one and the same. Therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4455/2012, on the ground of parity -4-
4. On a perusal of the orders by this Court cited supra this Court has observed at paragraph 4 which reads as follows :-
"4. In the present case on hand, the learned Senior Advocate would point out that though there is a finding as to the present petitioner having tendered false evidence, there is no reason set forth by the court below as it being expedient in the interest of justice to hold a trial by itself. This is a mandate under the section and the Apex Court in a decided case in Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2008 SC 2965), has held that to exercise powers under Section 344 Cr.P.C, the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order, must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally give false evidence or fabricated such evidence.
Secondly, the court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice, the -5- witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness and the third condition would be that before commencing the summary trial for punishment, the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause as to why he should not be so punished and these conditions are mandatory as laid down in an earlier decision in the case of Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Maharashtra ((1971) 2 SCC 182). The learned Senior Advocate would submit that the second condition has not been satisfied in the present case on hand and therefore, the proceedings would have to be quashed."
5. This Court has relied upon the decision in MAHILA VINOD KUMARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 2965 and came to the conclusion that the procedure followed by the -6- learned Sessions Judge in referring the matter under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. is not in accordance with law. It is observed specifically that the learned Sessions Judge has to express his opinion while rendering the judgment to the effect that the witness before them have either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence, as a result of such opinion the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interest of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which it appears to have been committed by the witness. The third condition would be that before commencing summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing the cause as to why he should not be so punished. Thus the Court has come to the conclusion that three important ingredients have not been strictly complied with by the learned Sessions Judge before referring the complaint under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. in order to take action against PWs.1 and 3. -7-
6. Looking to the above said facts PW.1 in my opinion also stands on the same footing with respect to the procedural irregularity which amounts to illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge as observed earlier by this Court. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to differ from the opinion expressed by this Court insofar as PW.1 is concerned hence petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit of the said order, on the ground of parity.
7. In view of the above said reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.11/2010 pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, deserves to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*