Karnataka High Court
N.Chalapathi S/O Alte M. Narayanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101625/2019
Between:
1. N. Chalapathi S/o. Late M. Narayanappa
Age: 63 Years, Occ: Retired
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Kalasipalya, Bengaluru City,
R/O: No.407 6th Cross,
T.L. Layout Amrutahalli,
Bengaluru.
2. H.E. Manjappa S/o. Erappa
Age: 61 Years, Occ: Retired Police Officer,
Near Lagan Kalyana Mantapa,
Shivamogha, R/O: Shivamogha,
Presently R/O: Krushinagar,
Dollars Colony, Shivamogga.
3. Manjunath S/o.T.A.Gangaramaiha
Age: 53 Years, Occ: Working as Driver in
the Office of Central Crime Branch,
Carlton House, Bengaluru,
R/O: Bengaluru,
Presently R/o: No.988,
B Block, Vijayananda Nagar,
Nandini Layout, Bengaluru.
Crl.P.No.101625/2019
2
4. Sri.Jagannath Rai S/O Ramaiah Rai
Age: About 47 Years,
Occ: Working as Police Inspector,
B.D.A. Office Special Squad,
Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru
5. Ranganatha S/o. Ranganathappa
Age: About 61 Years,
Occ: Retired Police Constable,
Cowl Bazar Police Station,
Ballari, R/O: Ballari City,
Presently R/o: D.No.162,
14th Cross, 1st Main Road,
1st Floor, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore.
6. Basavaraj S/o. Jayappa
Age: About 38 Years,
Occ: Working as Constable and Writer,
Basavanagar Police Station,
Davangere, R/o: Davangere City,
Presently R/O No.919/13/2A,
Surabhi Building,
1st Cross, 7th Ward,
K.B. Extension, Davanagere.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Vinay S.Koujalagi, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
By P.S.I. Ballari Police Station
Represented By S.P.P.,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bench Dharwad.
2. Dr.Vinayaka Prasanna K.
S/O Late K. Suryanarayana,
Age: 45 Years,
Crl.P.No.101625/2019
3
Assistant Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine,
Vijayanagara Institute of
Medical Sciences, Ballary,
R/O: B 21, VIMS Campus,
Cantonment, Ballari.
... Respondents
(By Sri R. Ravindra Naik, High Court
Government Pleader for R-1)
***
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 28.06.2019
passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari in
C.C.No.723 of 2013 dismissing the applications filed by
these petitioners under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., for the
offences punishable under Sections 500, 220, 504 & 506 of
IPC read with Section 149 of IPC, raising the bar of prior
sanction, in the interest of justice.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
through Video Conference at Kalaburagi Bench, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 28-06-2019 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bellary (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") in C.C.No.723/2013, which case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections Crl.P.No.101625/2019 4 500, 220, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "IPC') against the present petitioners who are accused numbers 1 to 6 therein.
2. The summary of the case of the complainant as could be gathered from the materials placed before me is that, the Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "RGUHS") lodged a complaint on 14-03-2011, against unknown persons relating to the Post-Graduate Entrance Examination 2011 held at Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'VIMS', for brevity). It is alleged in the complaint that, some students who appeared in PGET examination at different Centres filed a complaint to the Vice Chancellor, RGUHS, Bengaluru, on 03-03-2011 complaining about the mal practices said to have been practiced by the Crl.P.No.101625/2019 5 candidates in collusion with the invigilators. Two other persons also filed their complaints in that regard before the Lokayukta, Bengaluru.
The Cowl Bazaar police, Ballari registered a case in Crime No.56/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 117, 121 and 138 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Section 120B, 417, 418, 465, 468 and 409 of the IPC. After investigation, the complainant police filed 'B' report in that matter. However, the Lokayukta Police, after holding some investigation, directed the Government to nullify the rank of the students who appeared in the entrance examination. The unsuccessful candidates approached this Court through W.P.No.13774/2011. In the said writ petition, this Court directed the Director General of Police, CID, Bengaluru, to hold further investigation and to submit a report.
Crl.P.No.101625/20196
In the said connection, the present respondent No.2, who apprehended his arrest, made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain the relief of anticipatory bail and ultimately surrendered before the First Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ballari on 25-10-2011 and was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, he was given to police custody by the Magistrate on 26-10-2011. According to the complainant police, they continued the investigation after taking the present respondent No.2 in to police custody.
Subsequently, the present respondent No.2 filed a Private Complaint against the present petitioners under Section 200 Cr.P.C., in the Court below contending that from 2011 he has been working as the Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine at VIMS and the complainant police, who had taken his custody by the order of the Magistrate, had Crl.P.No.101625/2019 7 ill-treated him. It is his specific allegation that, in the guise of investigation, the complainant police forced him to sign some pre-written papers and also blank papers, which he refused to do. Then the police threatened him of dire consequences. The present petitioner No.1 shouted at him and ordered to put him under handcuffs. The other co-accused persons conjointly followed the directions of petitioner No.1.
Thus the 2nd respondent was handcuffed and was paraded in front of the students and the staff. According to 2nd respondent, the petitioners also invited the media people like the press and TV channels, who gathered and broadcasted the said scene of 2nd respondent under handcuffs being paraded. It is also alleged by 2nd respondent that the petitioners also threatened to kill him by way of encounter and contended that he has a good social and personal status; he is not a person who is violent Crl.P.No.101625/2019 8 in nature and had never tried to escape from the clutches of the police, but was illegally put under handcuff, humiliated, defamed and ill-treated by the police.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the private complaint filed by 2nd respondent, examined the complainant as CW1 and other witnesses as CW2 and CW4 and recorded their sworn statements. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 31.12.2012 answering the requirements of previous sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., expressing his opinion that the accused cannot claim that they have done those acts during the course of performance of their duty at that stage, but they can take that as a defence, which can be considered at a later stage, proceeded to issue process against the accused persons i.e., the petitioners herein. Crl.P.No.101625/2019 9
Against the said issuance of summons, the petitioners preferred a criminal petition before this Court in Criminal Petition No.100039/2014. This Court vide its order dated 11-04-2014, passed in the said Criminal Petition No.100039/2014, dismissed the criminal petition with following observations made at para 20 of its order, which is reproduced herein below:
"20. In this particular case, when the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion expressing his inability to pass a final order with regard to the sanction point at the time of taking of the cognizance, such discretionary order passed by the learned Magistrate should not be ordinarily interfered with by this court by quashing the entire proceedings. Therefore, the accused persons are at liberty to place all the relevant materials and evidence before the learned Magistrate to show that the act committed by them falls exactly within the four corners of their official duty and that, while they were discharging their duties of their office and committed such an act and Crl.P.No.101625/2019 10 therefore, they are entitled to be protected u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. or u/s. 170 of the KP Act."
After dismissal of the above said Criminal Petition No.100039/2014, the present petitioners filed an application in the Court below under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and sought to dismiss the complaint for want of sanction as per Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.P. Act', for brevity), before filing the complaint against them. The Court below by its order dated 13-09-2017, dismissed the said application.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the accused Nos.1 to 6 preferred a criminal petition No.100192/2018 before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C."). Crl.P.No.101625/2019 11
4. This Court, after hearing both side, by its order dated 20-06-2018 in its detailed order, dismissed the petition as devoid of merit for admission. It appears that thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the case. However, the Trial Court by its impugned order dated 28-06-2019 dismissed the said application. It is against the said order of the Trial Court, accused Nos.1 to 6 have preferred the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in his brief argument submitted that he has challenged the impugned order on the ground that, prior sanction to prosecute the petitioners who were the Government officials has not been obtained by the complainant and that there is a delay in filing the complaint by the complainant.
Crl.P.No.101625/201912
Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged incident of handcuffing has taken place on 05-11-2011, whereas, the complaint has been filed on 22-01-2014, as such, the very criminal proceedings in the case deserves to be quashed.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader who has taken notice for respondent No.1 and has appeared, in his brief submission submitted that, the question of the alleged non-obtention of the sanction has already been adjudicated by the petitioners in their previous two petitions in Criminal Petition No.100039/2014 and Criminal Petition No.100192/2018 and this Court by considering the said ground has passed a detailed order on the said point, as such, the same ground cannot be re-agitated once again.
He further submitted that the alleged delay in filing the FIR cannot be pre-judged by the Court under Crl.P.No.101625/2019 13 Section 482 of Cr.P.C., since the contributory factors for the alleged delay, if any, have to be analysed only after trial.
7. This is the third round of petition filed by the present petitioners before this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.723/2013 pending before the Trial Court. The first attempt was made before this Court in Criminal Petition No.100039/2014 wherein their main ground for seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings was the alleged non-obtention of the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. In the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100039/2014 on 11-04-2014, this Court had given a detailed consideration on the said aspect of alleged non-obtention of the sanction and after relying upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Crl.P.No.101625/2019 14 was pleased to observe at paragraphs 19 and 20 as below:-
"19. After the evidence and after hearing the arguments at that stage, if the Court comes to the conclusion that sanction is an absolute requirement, then also, the Court can pass appropriate orders regarding the requirement of sanction order to prosecute the accused.
20. In this particular case, when the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion expressing his inability to pass a final order with regard to the sanction point at the time of taking of the cognizance, such discretionary order passed by the learned Magistrate should not be ordinarily interfered with by this court by quashing the entire proceedings. Therefore, the accused persons are at liberty to place all the relevant materials and evidence before the learned Magistrate to show that the act committed by them falls exactly within the four corners of their official duty and that, while they were discharging their duties of their office and committed such an act and Crl.P.No.101625/2019 15 therefore, they are entitled to be protected u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. or u/s. 170 of the KP Act."
8. Subsequently, it appears that the present petitioners filed an application before the trial Court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. which also came to be dismissed by the Trial Court in its order dated 13-09-2017. Challenging the said order, they preferred one more Criminal Petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No.100192/2018. Even in the said petition also, the petitioners had taken a contention of alleged non- obtention of sanction among other grounds. This Court in its order dated 20-06-2018 passed in the said Criminal Petition No.100192/2018 had made a detailed discussion about the alleged non-obtention of sanction prior to institution of the criminal case against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 to 6 and after referring to various judgments, relied upon by Crl.P.No.101625/2019 16 both side and referring to some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, was pleased to dismiss the petition, as devoid of merit at the stage of admission itself. Hence, it is clear that the alleged ground of non-obtention of sanction by the complainant prior to institution of the criminal case against the petitioners, has already been twice pondered upon by this Court in similar Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this Court has already given its finding thereupon, as such, going into the aspect of the alleged non-obtention of the sanction, once again, would not arise.
9. Secondly, the contention of the petitioners is that, there is a delay in filing the complaint. According to them, the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 05-11-2011 whereas the complaint is filed on 22-01-2014. It is a settled principle that a mere delay in lodging the complaint with the Police Crl.P.No.101625/2019 17 would not entitle for quashing of the criminal proceedings, though the alleged delay in filing the complaint may introduce or imbibe some doubt in the case of the complaint. However, it has to be shown to the Court that the said delay has enabled any dilution of the complaint to suit the purposes of the complainant or in bringing some elements or allegations as an after-thought, which would not have made their appearance had the complaint been lodged at the earliest point of time.
10. In a nutshell, it can be said that, the delayed complaint if has enabled the complainant or an Investigating Officer to bring in some element which causes prejudice to the interest of the accused, for no valid reasons, then, the delay may be one of the ground for acquitting the accused for the alleged offences, giving them the benefit of doubt. However, merely because there is some delay, one cannot jump Crl.P.No.101625/2019 18 into a conclusion that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused, by itself, becomes totally suspicious, as such, to be quashed. The complainant, as the case may be, is required to be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the delay or to substantiate the same. The criminal proceedings itself cannot be quashed keeping in front the alleged delay in lodging the complaint.
11. In the instant case, the alleged question of delay, if any, may have to be considered only after the trial. As such, the said argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the said point is not acceptable.
12. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court would go to show that the trial Court has considered both these aspects, i.e. the alleged non-obtention of sanction by the complainant and the Crl.P.No.101625/2019 19 alleged delay in lodging the complaint with cogent reasons and has observed that, there are materials to proceed further in the matter in subjecting the accused for trial. In the said process, the trial Court has also considered and analysed the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 led on behalf of the complainant and perused the exhibits from Exs.P-1 to P-10 and has arrived at a conclusion that the evidence produced by the complainant under Section 244 of IPC makes a prima facie case against the accused persons and that there are sufficient materials to frame charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 220, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
13. I do not find any irregularity or inconsistency in the said order of the trial Court, warranting interference by quashing the criminal case Crl.P.No.101625/2019 20 pending before it. Accordingly, I find no ground for admitting this petition.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration.
In view of the fact that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 2011, as such, it is a very old matter, the Trial Court disposing of the matter, in accordance with law, within six months from today, is highly appreciated.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the Trial Court, without delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*