Karnataka High Court
Sri Sachidanandamurthy V C vs Sri B Satish on 7 September, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SACHIDANANDAMURTHY V.C.
S/O T CHENNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT PERMANENT ADDRESS
UDUKUNTE POST SOLURU HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RES NO.281, 10TH CROSS,
OPP B. C. C. LAYOUT
2ND STAGE BUS STAND
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560040
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI B SATISH
S/O BYRALINGAIAH
AGED 38 YEARS, DRIVER
R/AT PERMANENT ADDRESS
UDUKUNTE POST,
SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
-2-
CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
RES NO.331, 11TH BLOCK,
BDA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560072
2. SRI L SRINIVAS
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUDUR STATION
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
RAMANAGARA TOWN & DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. P.N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE, *MAGADI , RAMANAGARA IN P.C.R.NO.56/2019 DATED
23.02.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 182, 211 AND 499 OF
IPC, ANNEXURE-D AND REMAND THE SAME FOR FRESH
CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting private complaint filed by the * Inserted vide Court order dated 17/10/2022. -3- CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021 petitioner in PCR No.56/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 182, 211 and 499 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
A little walk in history is needed to consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is the complainant and has filed a complaint against one B. Satish in Crime No.152/2011 and the petitioner was an accused in the complaint registered by B. Satish in Crime No.157/2011.
Both these cases are investigated into, and charge sheets are filed by the Police. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, who is an accused in Crime No.157/2011, the petitioner files an application seeking his discharge from the case on the ground that none of the allegations could be proved even if it is taken in its true sense. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 24.04.2017, accepts the application for discharge of the petitioner and passes an -4- CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021 order of discharge. While passing an order of discharge, the concerned Court observes that the petitioner without any rhyme or reason is hauled into the proceedings due to the act of the Investigating Officer who conducted a slipshod investigation and filed an erroneous charge sheet, notwithstanding no offence being made out against the petitioner.
3. After the discharge of the petitioner, the petitioner registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 182, 211 and 499 of the IPC before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, considering the fact that the accused therein was a public servant and there was no sanction obtained, directed the petitioner to produce the order of sanction. The petitioner gives a representation to the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecuting the accused for the aforesaid offences in the light of the fact that he was the -5- CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021 Investigating Officer against whom several observations were made by the concerned Court.
4. The competent authority at whose hands the sanction was sought for, issues an endorsement that L. Srinivasa whom the petitioner had sought sanction to prosecute was not the Investigating Officer and therefore, sanction cannot be accorded. Taking note of the said endorsement, the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate in PCR No.56/2019 comes to be rejected. The rejection of the complaint is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the crime having been investigated into by L. Srinivas in Crime No.157/2011, could not have escaped the clutches of law for having conducted a slipshod investigation and made the petitioner as an accused and would contend that the second respondent is liable for -6- CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021 malicious prosecution in the light of the observations made by the concerned Court.
6. On the other hand, the learned HCGP on instructions would submit that the endorsement was issued owing to the fact that all the investigation and filing of charge sheet was done by one H.Rayappa and not L. Srinivas and therefore, the endorsement cannot be found fault with.
7. The learned counsel representing L. Srinivas would contend that there were two crimes registered; one by the petitioner and the other against the petitioner. Against the petitioner was in Crime No.*157/2011, which he investigated and filed a charge sheet. The crime registered on the complaint of the petitioner was one *152/2011, which was not investigated by him and the investigation was conducted by H.Rayappa. Therefore, he would contend that he not being the Investigating Officer, sanction was erroneously sought. He would further * corrected vide Court order dated 17/10/2022. -7- CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021 contend that the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would operate, as the offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 182, 211 of the IPC.
8. Learned counsel representing the complainant - B. Sathish would toe the lines of the respondents herein.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and therefore are not reiterated. A perusal at the charge sheet so filed by the respective Investigating Officer becomes germane. Crime No.*152/2011 was registered by the petitioner against one B Sathish. In the said crime, though it narrates that L. Srinivas was appointed as the Investigating Officer, the entire investigation right from collection of evidence and recording of statements by examination of witnesses and filing of the charge sheet before the concerned Court were all done by one H. * corrected vide Court order dated 17/10/2022. -8- CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021 Rayappa. This could be gathered from the very perusal of the charge sheet so filed in C.C.No.222/2012 arising out of Crime No.157/2011.
11. The other crime that was registered by the petitioner is against one Satish. The said crime was registered in Crime No.152/2011. This was investigated into by L. Srinivas and the charge sheet was also filed by L. Srinivas. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.152/2011 was L. Srinivas and the Investigating Officer in Crime No.157/2011 was one H. Rayappa. It is in this light, the endorsement was issued by the competent authority, when sanction was sought to prosecute L. Srinivas concerning Crime No.157/2011 which was not the crime which was investigated into by L. Srinivas, therefore, no fault can be found with declining sanction to prosecute L. Srinivas as it would have been by itself a malicious prosecution like the one petitioner is now complaining for.
-9-CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
12. The issue now is whether the private complaint could have been rejected at the threshold for want of sanction. Section 197 reads as follows:
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.--(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence
- 10 -CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, section 376A, section 376C, section 376D or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government"
occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted.
(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the Contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with
- 12 -CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.
(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held."
13. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unacceptable as the complaint is registered under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and an enquiry is conducted or sworn statement is recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. What
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021remained was either to close the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. or issue summons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. The issuance of summons would have been only after taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in taking note of the fact, whether sanction was available on record or not since at the stage of taking of cognizance, the learned Magistrate ought to have looked into the sanction as, if the act of taking cognizance and issuing summons was without sanction to prosecute and it would have been a nullity in law. To avoid such nullity, the learned Magistrate being cautious, has rejected the complaint for want of sanction. No fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate in terminating the complaint for want of sanction as it is strictly in consonance with law. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sans substance.
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 5184 of 2021
14. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to take such steps in law, if it is legally available.
For the aforesaid reasons, the criminal petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64