Karnataka High Court
Sri.Hanumesh@Hanumesha@Madhusudan ... vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
CRL.P.NO.102412 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SRI.HANUMESH @ HANUMESHA
@ MADHUSUDAN TEJA @ BABU @ RISHI
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER,
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY,
SHIVAPURA (V), TAL:GANGAVATI,
DIST:KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.,)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THORANAGAL POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY SPP.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. SRI. RAJANNASA KATVA
S/O LATE NARAYANASA
AGE:43 YEARS,
OCC:SHOPKEEPER,
-2-
R/O:SBM BANK, THORANGALLU VILLAGE,
TAL:SANDUR, DIST:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.127/2016 ON THE FILE OF I-ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 354, 354-
A, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, SECTION 4, 8, 12, 14, 15
AND 17 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES
ACT, SECTION 67(A) AND SECTION 67(B) OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Special Case No.127/2016 on the file of the I-Additional District and Special Judge, Ballari for offences punishable under sections 376, 354, 354A, 504, 506 read with section 34 of -3- Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Sections 4, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 17 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act"), Section 67(A) and 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short "I.T. Act").
2. The brief facts are that on 10.05.2016, one Rajannasa, the father of victim girl had lodged a complaint before the Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari which was registered in Crime No.86/2016 making an allegation that the petitioner herein was a dance instructor for the victim girl aged about 13 years at the time of the incident and he had taken her away on 10.05.2016 on the pretext of an outstation dance camp and thereafter had committed various offences punishable under IPC and POCSO Act. The said case was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed on 08.12.2016 for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 354(1)(ii) and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, which was registered as Special Case No.3/2017 before the learned District and -4- Sessions Judge, Ballari and it is stated that the same is pending for trial.
3. The same complainant Rajannasa, the father of victim girl, lodged another complaint dated 16.07.2016 before the Thorangal Police station in Crime No.73/2016 alleging that on 15.07.2016 during the night, the present petitioner along with three others were circulating some pamphlets which were extremely derogatory and offensive to the victim girl. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the said case on 15.11.2016 which was numbered as Special Case No.127/2016 before the learned I- Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ballari.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition seeking quashing of Special Case No.127/2016 before the learned I-Additional District and Special Judge Ballari submits before me that in both charge sheets in Special Case No.3/2017 and Special Case No.127/2016 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special -5- Judge, Ballari, the petitioner herein is made to face trial on the same set of allegations which is impermissible and illegal. For the said purpose, he took me through the complaint allegations in both the cases viz., Crime No.86/2016 of Gandhinagar Police Station and Crime No.73/2106 of Thorangal Police Station.
5. Learned HCGP and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant, per contra, submitted that the allegations which constitute charge sheets in Special Case No.3/2017 and Special Case No. 127/2016 are totally different, though some of the offences cited in the charge sheets are common and therefore, the petitioner is not put to any legal embarrassment or prejudice during the trial. They submitted that the allegations constituting the various offences subject matter of Special Case No.3/2016 and Special Case No.127/2016 are extremely grave in nature and therefore miscarriage of justice will result if accused is not put to trial on both charge sheets. Therefore, they submit that -6- there is no merit in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and I have perused the charge sheet in Special Case No.3/2017 and Special Case No.127/2016.
7. Perusal of the charge sheet in Special Case No.3/2017 which has emanated from the complaint lodged on 10.05.2016 in Crime No.86/2016 of Gandhinagar Police Station shows that after the victim girl did not report back at home pursuant to the accused petitioner taking her away on the pretext of outstation dance camp in Hospet, she was taken by him in a bus and he had subjected her to certain offences under the provisions of IPC and the provisions of POCSO Act. The allegations covered in the said charge sheet are limited in nature. On the other hand, perusal of the charge sheet in Special Case No.127/2016 discloses that the genesis for the registration of the case on 16.07.2016 in Crime -7- No.73/2016 of Thorangal police station was the incident which took place on 15.07.2016 near the house of the complainant wherein the petitioner along with three others had circulated pamphlets containing extremely damaging contents against the dignity of the victim girl, who is hardly aged about 13 years. The investigation was done thoroughly by an officer of Thorangal Police Station covering certain incidents dating back even prior to the complaint in Crime No.86/2016 of Gandhinagar Police Station which unearthed certain incidents where the petitioner is alleged to have recorded on digital equipments certain sexually explicit contents with the victim girl involving commission of offences under Section 376 of IPC and the POCSO Act, 2012 and the offences under Information Technology Act, 2008. Charge sheet shows that investigation officer has painstaking collected materials, documents - both physical and digital - which prima facie support and sustain the offences quoted in the charge sheet in Special Case No.127/2016. -8-
8. Perusal of both the charge sheets make it very clear that in the trial of the two cases separate and distinct incidents and acts constituting the offences will be referred to and accused will have to defend against the same. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the proceedings in Special Case No.127/2016 is either abuse of process of the Court or that the said charge sheet is groundless. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2018 is also dismissed.
Communicate this order to the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan