Karnataka High Court
Sri.Dinesh Kumar Singhi vs The State Of Karnataka, on 28 February, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 28th Day of February 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No. 100287/2017
Between:
1. Sri Dinesh Kumar Singhi,
(wrongly mentioned in FIR as
Dinesh Kumar Singhvi),
S/o late Udaichand Singhi,
Aged about 46 years,
Executive Chairman,
BMM Ispat Ltd., 101, 1st Floor,
Pride Elite, No. 10, Museum Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Sri Raju V.V.V S/o V.S.N. Murthy,
Aged about 48 years,
Executive Director & CFO,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
3. Sri Silas Nerella,
S/o late H.S. Narella,
(wrongly mentioned in FIR as Shailesh),
aged about 49 years, General Manager-PR,
BMM Ispat Ltd., 101, 1st Floor,
Pride Elite, No. 10, Museum Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
4. Sri Ganesh Hegade s/o B. Kollur Naik,
Aged about 32 years, Manager
Administration, BMM Ispat Limited,
2
No. 114, Danapura village,
Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
5. Sri Manish Varnekar,
(wrongly mentioned in FIR as
Manisha Varnekar),
S/o Dattatray P. Vernekar,
Aged about 44 years, DGM,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
6. Sri Manjunatha s/o Veeranna,
Aged about 40 years, DGM,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
7. Sri Srinivas Rao @ Mallapudi
Srinivas Rao s/o late M.N. Achri Rao,
Aged about 55 years, DGM,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
8. Sri M. Srinivas s/o late M. Swarajya Rao,
Aged about 46 years, Assistant Manager,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
9. Sri Ravikumar s/o Venkataswamy,
Aged about 34 years, Manager,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
3
10. Sri Chandrashekar Bellad,
S/o Gurusiddappa B. Bellad,
Aged about 45 years,
DMG Safety Officer,
BMM Ispat Limited, No. 114,
Danapura village, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District-583 222.
- Petitioners
(By Sri R.M. Kulkarni, Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented through,
Mariyammanahalli Police Station,
Kudalgi Sub Division, M.M. Halli
Police Station, Hosapete Taluk,
Ballari District.
2. Sri. Doddamani Ramappa,
S/o Banneppa, aged 46 years,
R/o Venkatapura Village,
Hosapete Taluk, Ballari District.
- Respondents
(by Smt. Veena Hegde, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under 482 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 10/2017 of
Mariyammanahalli Police Station, for the offences punishable
u/S 120B, 302, 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC & etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
4
ORDER
The petitioners have approached this court seeking quashing of the case registered against them in Cr. No. 10/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, the person by name Doddamani Ramappa has lodged a report on 05.01.2017 stating that his son by name Somappa was working in B.M.M. factory as an electrician under one Sri. Saipriya Contractor. It is alleged that on 04.01.2017 he had been to the factory to attend the afternoon shift. In the evening at about 7.30 P.M. the complainant has received an information from one Kambali Hanamanthappa, that his son has fell down in the plaint into a converter belt and sustained severe injuries all over his body and that he was being shifted to Hospital. After receiving the said information the complainant went to the Hospital and saw his son. By that time, he was dead succumbing to the injuries. 5 Therefore, he lodges the complainant stating that his son has fell down into a the Converter belt and sustained injuries and died. Therefore, in order to ascertain correct cause of death, the complainant requested the Police to enquire into the matter. The Police on the basis of such a complaint registered a UDR in No. 1/2017 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and enquiring into the matter.
3. After lodging of the said complaint, the said Doddamani Ramappa has once again lodged another complaint on 01.02.2017 to the same Police making allegations that the accused person /petitioner herein have a role to play in the death of his son. It is specifically alleged that when his son was working in the factory, in order to help the other labourers in the factory, he was protested against the said company and in order to take revange against Somappa, all these accused persons (petitioners herein) joined together and posted him to the peak of the plant. At about 7.00 P.M. on the date of death of the deceased, they all joined together and 6 committed murder by throwing him to the converter belt. On such allegations, the Police have registered a crime in Cr. No. 10/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC and started investigation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there can not be any First Information Report twice in respect of a common cause or with regard to the same cause. The registration of a crime is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the Police are already enquiring into the UDR proceedings and they have to submit a report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C to the competent authority. Thereafter, only if they found any material during the course of enquiry, they can proceed with the crime registered against petitioners in Cr.No.10/2017. However, the learned counsel also submitted that the complainant has received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the company out of Rs. 11 Lakhs compensation ordered by the company. Therefore, in order to extract more money, he has 7 filed a separate complaint against the petitioners herein. Further, he submitted that the said Somanna Hanamanthappa, whose name has been mentioned in the second complaint has given the information to the complainant at the earlier point of time, that the son of the complainant died due to fall into a converter belt, etc. Therefore, the Police cannot bifurcate the said statement into two or they cannot record the statement of the said witness subsequently, in order to convert the case into a cognizable offence. Therefore, on these grounds, submitted that the proceedings initiated by the Police in Cr.No. 10/2017 is liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that earlier there is no case registered for any cognizable offence. When once cognizable case is registered, the court cannot restrain the Police from exercising their statutory duty. Therefore, the truth or falsity of the contents of First Information Report has to be tested by the Police 8 during course of investigation. It is too a threshold stage to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the petition is to be dismissed.
6. On careful perusal of the earlier complain lodged by the same complainant Doddamani Ramappa, of course, he has stated that his son has fell down while doing the work but, he was not sure as to the cause of death. Therefore, he requested the Police to enquire into the matter about the cause of death. But, subsequently, the same person has ascertained from other sources and also from some other person that his son has not been succumbed to the un- natural death, but it is a murder committed by the petitioners. Therefore, in order to alert the Police to investigate the matter by registering a case under Section 154 of Cr.P.C he requested the Police to give the details about the death of his son. Therefore, the Police have inevitably registered a case in Cr. No. 10/2017.
9
7. It is quite natural that when a UDR case is registered. The Police have to enquire into the matter. Even considering that during the course of the enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., if the Police receives any information with regard to any cognizable offence with regard to cause of death of some person, then the UDR proceedings could normally come to an end because, it merges with the investigation under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.,
8. Even for any reason, the Police come to the conclusion that there is a doubt with regard to the death of a person, then also they can suo-moto investigate the matter by registering a case under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, what remains for consideration before the Police, ultimately is that, they have to ascertain to either under Section 174 or 154 of Cr.P.C. the cause of death, nature of death of a person, whether it is homicidal, or suicidal or unnatural death. When the offences are alleged against the petitioners specifically making allegations in a complaint, then the Police are bound 10 to register a case under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Otherwise, they cannot investigate the matter.
9. In that way of the matter, if they register a case under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. then they can investigate the matter in order to ascertain whether it is an unnatural or homicidal or suicidal death. Therefore, I am of the opinion, at this threshold stage, when the case has been already registered and the truth or the falsity of the two complaints have been ascertained by the Police, at this stage such investigation cannot be stalled or quashed by this court. However, it is made clear that when such serious allegations are made against the petitioners, the Police have to expedite the matter as expeditiously as possible and submit the report. If the Police even during the course of investigation under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. find that it is only unnatural death and not homicidal death, then also they can submit the report to the competent court in this regard. Therefore, on these reasons I do not find any reasons, at this stage to quash the 11 proceedings. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the Police are directed to investigate the matter as expeditiously as possible and submit the report to the competent authority.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv