Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekhar vs J Hemanth Kumar on 19 September, 2008
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
i Superin ene ent of Police (Admr UP RARIWAIARA FHP COUR UP RARNAIARA FIGH COUKI UF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU: maw ies S| * a jee Ry POSE PE Pe y "aE pre IN THE HIGH COURT OF | DATED THIS THE 19 Sr. Chancdrashe khar S/O Rajappa Killedar,~ | Aged about 41 years, Occ: Advocate, R/oRille Str BE, Mudgal, 7 tq. Lingasngur, me ayes 7 District Raichurr . 3 ln Crh K BP No. 204/20 JOS: L. Sriv J. Henan th. Kumar S/O Jagannath, Aged about 53 years, Ld, Chuilpe rga Dist rict, . G Lu par ga. The State of Kar nataka, "Represented by the Public Prosecutor. > wy P2060 ASC fw 6 602 £2005 KARKN NAT "ABA y LE SAR GA LPL, NAG, AMC SHAN Ds AS ms 18/2008. & 602/ 2008 Petitioner . jcommon in all Petitions} ed TT MMM WE MARINADA TOP WU KE UP RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH © "°T OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUF rh RP No.GG3/2005: 1. Sri. M. Sharanappa S/o Mallar appa CHlekar Aged about 4 } years, ee: irole Police lnispector, i Tq. Kuddri, 3e elgaum. 2. The State of Narmataka, Represented by the Public Prosecutor. In Cri RP No.Go? £2005 o: fraser, Sri. Gavakwacd - oe ee S/o Vittal Rao Ga wWakivad,. °.. Super intendent of Poli ce (Addl y, Bellary 7 istr ict, Bellary 2. The State of Kar ii atakéa, Represented by y the Public Prosec Tutor. 1. Respondents (Oy "Sri. Ag moet Kumar D eshp manide, Adv. For R-1, Sr. Sh *haranabasappa ke Babshetty, Adv. For KZ} P60 CYL P.60G/05 and Cripps 602/05 Aled under Section. Br) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the arvocate for the > petitioner praying that this Hon'ble -ourt May ph leased to set aside the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-ll, Rais 'bur i Cri Pp. "No. 2¢ #2002, 13/2002 and 32/2002 dated 3h 01.2005 and consequently restore thie proceedings in Be NG.B4/99 (CC NOLS £2002) before the Court of the JMEC, Unga: ssugur. These Criminal Revision Petitions coning on for hearing inf macde the following:- wot ene, AL. i ~~. a io rd 4 private criminal complaint against the accused in PC CUURKI UP RAKINNAIARA MIGM COUKE UF RAKNAIARA HIGH COUR! OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR' Vedio ORDER
These three criminal revision petitions ate. fe re agai tinst the order dated 31.01,2005 in CrLic.P. 127 2002, 27, / 2092 a8 id 32/2002 passed by Addl Sessions Judge, Fast frack Court AL. . . Maichur setting aside the Or cer date ck 07.01: 2002 in PLCLNo. 34/1999 passed by J MPC. al inosine. cognizance of the offence again. net the- petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 17 , 198, 194,195, 23 au, 464, 465, 466 & 469 r/w Sec.34 of IPG.
2. 'The - "petitioner "isthe complainant and the respondents are 'the accused oefore the Trial Court. In this } ndgmenst for CO venience, the parties are referred to their status be fore ehe rial Court.
er The complainant is a practicing advocate at
--Lingasuger. Accused No.1 was the sub-Inspector of Police, : Accused No.2 was the Superintendent of Police and Accused . No.3 was the Circle inspector of Police. 'The complainant filed i my :
NO.G4/1999 for the offences punishable under sections we "T OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU Aga Sessions. vudge, Fast Track Court at Raichur in ar On MOONE OO LU UP KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ~~:
e referred to above. The main contention of the ce omplairiart is that the accused No.1 int emionally made alterations 4A the. FIR dated 21.06.1994 by striking out.the name of Be aiashekar | and inserted in its place the name - of 'the comp bi saiit Chandrashekar. further the accused Nov nstig sat fod | accused | Nos.2 & 3 to record false. s stater ments f from the withesses in sonnection with the FIR dated a4 Ob. 1901, The Trial Court after recording the. : sO stat sient « of the complainant passed an order on. 07.61 2002 « t lncoting to register the case against the accuse: Ak orth Spt Wushable under various sections refer red to. shoves. » Consequently, the private complaint of the petitioner came to be registered in 0.6 No.2/2002, Ager ieved by this order of the Trial Court the accused : preferred a criminal revision petition before the 24 ety SEER Pal lof 20 J2, CrLR.P.27/2002 and CriR.P. 32 /O2. The <evisi cnal' Court after hearing arguments on both the side passed the impugned order on 31.91.9005 and set aside the
- order of the Trial Court. Hence this revision petition by the complainant.
". registering the case in C.C.No.2/2000. Th GOUKI Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU! 2
4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire papers.
5. tis not in dispute that the FI mR in ques tion 'Was submitted to the jurisdictional Magisters te. oni 22. OG6.1994 On, Bee ye i709, 1994, the police fled the charges! 1ee t b yefore. the Trial, Court against four accuse a qc ding the < omplainant herein.
The complainant participated ine the 1 roo -eedin igs before the Trial Court. The. inateria al on: ead Hat discloses that on O7 09,1998, the rial was con: mience d and the judgment was ae is admitted evidence on pronounced on -O7, Oo 1999 record primafacie esta bli sh es: the fact that as early as on September. 1994, the complainant was aware of the weorrections © rag ude in the FIR. After lapse of 5 vears, the complainant flea the present private complaint in PCR : No. 34/ 1999, "This delay of more than S years in filing the "private complaint against the accused remained unexplained.
- T he Trial Court without considering this aspect of the matter passed an order taking cognizance of the offence and e Revisional Court in by taking into consideration the unexplained delay of more ae i ~ RLWE RARIVAIARA FIOM CUUKI OF KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU! + SWS UEP PSE We Med a, py naine Rajashiekar al the relevant point of time pract 7 Lingasugur ai id Wwith = removed and falsely implicated the complainant. |] absence ; of . any Such averment in the cx coinplaing ant, | do not find than 5 vears has rightiv set aside the order of t ne 'trie ied «& tour 4.
under the impugned order.
ae 6 If is the specific case of he complainant, u raat 4 accused Noi i lentionally made © alterations iy the BIR . datéa"
21.06.1994 by siniking out the hame of Ra ajashekar and inserted the name of colnphainane- Che andi ashekar. Hxcept this bare allegation in the complak 7 there is no other if allegation and mater al on face cord to show Lhat accused No.1 made the alter ations in the | re IR Even if the entire allegations made i the private £ onpl aint bythe c wn plainant are taken as Uue aiid cor Pech, th e s gate edo Mot constitute the ne ecessary ingredients for the offences alleged against the accused. it is net the cas Se 'ot ihe complainant that there was an Advocate acticin at an intention to save tim, his name Was the tev pet complaint filled by the any justifiable reason to cortinue the proceedings against the ac nuIsed. Ph "UIRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUF vw SM OWE ARIANA FE LUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIC::
va Cre RP 604 7206 G03 (2005 & 602
7. rther, if there is any mistake crept int the PIR, it is always open for the concerned authority th conaek tHie® Same. In this case, the alleged correction in t ne FUR in-facts and circumstances of this case is not mater rial alt ovation, The, Trial Court without noticing the ; avernient 5. maide im the complaint committed an Megalit y inet faking cognizance of the offence and registering the ¢ CASE against the aceused.
8. Itis rot VAS that bs respect of the FIR datec 21.06, 1994, a omaesnet was file red. and the trial had taken place in S.C No. 98/1 1994 After 7 the pronouncement of the judgment on" 07.04, 38a, "the complamant has filed the pre esent. complaint on. AG11,1999. On the face of it, it is nothin ne but abtsé of process of law. Therefore the revisional can court had rightly "passed the impugned order and set aside _ the order of the Trial Court. I find no justifiable ground to
-ntertere' with the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, these petitions are * hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge