Karnataka High Court
M Babu @ Builder Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2645 OF 2017
BETWEEN
M. Babu @ Builder Babu
S/o Muniswamy
Aged about 41 years
MSNQ, 5th Cross
Kodihalli
Bangalore - 560092.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. V.N. Madhava Reddy, Advocate (Absent))
AND
1. The State of Karnataka
By Sarjapura Police Station
Attibele Circle
Reptd. By S.P.P.
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Smt. Asha
W/o Late Prasanna Kumar
Aged about 25 years
R/o No.4, Srinivasa Reddy Building
Bommasandra Village
Anekal Taluk
Bengaluru Rural District-560099.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)
:2:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR
in Cr.No.266/2016 dated 14.12.2016 of Sarjapura Police
Station for the offence punishable under Sections 506,
306, 342 and 363 of IPC pending on the file Prl. Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn.,) and CJMC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural
District, Bangalore against the petitioner.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Cr.No.266/2016 of Sarjapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 508, 306, 342, 363 of IPC.
2. Though this petition is listed for admission, none appear for the petitioner either through video conference or physically present before the Court. However, learned HCGP for the respondent for the respondent - State is physically before the Court.
3. On 20.11.2020, this Court had directed the learned HCGP to ascertain the present status of the case in Cr.No.266/2016. The case is of the year 2016 but :3: there is no progress either to laying of the charge sheet against the accused or submitting report based upon the material secured by the investigating agency for investigation. Therefore, after hearing learned HCGP this petition is taken for disposal. It is taken as there is no argument on the part of the petitioner who is a gravamen of crime.
4. It is transpired in the complaint that petitioner is a builder undertaking building works in and around Bengaluru. In connection with his business, he came in contact with one Prasannakumar from whom he was purchasing the cement for some time on credit basis. On 19.10.2016 it was informed by one Prakash Reddy regarding the death of Prasannakumar who committed suicide on 18.10.2016. Based upon the complaint registered by Smt.Asha, w/o Prasannakumar stating that the petitioner was responsible for death of her husband. It is alleged in her complaint that she could trace the mobile phone of her husband wherein it is recorded to the effect that this petitioner kidnapped her husband on :4: 17.10.2016 and threatened him and also assaulted with dire consequences. Hence, the said Prasannakumar committed suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.1 registered the case in Crime No.266/2016 for the aforesaid offences on 14.12.2016 by recording the FIR. These are all the facts as revealed in the complaint which came to be registered in the year 2016.
5. However, as already stated that either the petitioner who is arraigned as accused and gravamen of the allegation nor his counsel has come forward to the Court to address the arguments physically or appearing through the video conference to progress with the case. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that there is no arguments advanced for seeking quashing of the proceedings in the aforesaid crime.
6. Whereas, learned HCGP has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint filed by second respondent - Smt.Asha. The offences which reflected in the FIR even subsequent registration of the crime in the :5: year 2016 that there is no progress either submitting any sort of the report under the provisions of Cr.P.C. or to file any charge sheet against the accused. On this ground, learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner/accused.
7. It is in this context, it is relevant to refer the complaint registered by Smt.Asha against the accused at Sarjapura Police Station. Based upon her complaint, the crime came to be registered in the year 2016. But the grounds taken in the petition is that with a malafide intention, the complaint has been filed at a belated stage. It could be seen the death of Prasanna Kumar is dated 18.10.2016 and the report of his wife is dated 14.12.2016. It is contended that Prasannakumar being the husband of complainant and a retail cement dealer will supply cement to the petitioner on credit basis to an extent of crores of rupees which is only an after thought to extract some amount from the petitioner. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner was arranging to discharge the amount due to Prasannakumar to the tune of Rs.Two lakhs, since :6: he could not mobilize immediately due to demonetization. The petitioner was shocked to see that on 14.12.2016 at about 10.00 AM the Sarjapur Police had come to his house to take him to the police station stating that he is responsible for the death of Prasannakumar. Further, it is alleged in the complaint that she could trace the mobile phone of her husband wherein it is recorded to the effect that this petitioner kidnapped her husband on 17.10.2016 by threatening him with dire consequence.
8. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. that when once the FIR has been recorded by the concerned jurisdictional police based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, it is the domain vested with the investigating agency to investigate the case and secure the material documents and laying charge sheet keeping in view Sections 169 and 170 of Cr.P.C which reads as under:
169. Release of accused when evidence deficient.
If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence :7: or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial.
170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient.
(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.
(2) When the officer in charge of a police station forward an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary to produce before him, and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the cage as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed and prosecute or give evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused.:8:
(3) If the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond, such Court shall be held to include any Court to which such Magistrate may refer the case for inquiry or trial, provided reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant or persons.
(4) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report.
9. In the instant case, though the crime came to be registered in the year 2016 based upon the complaint filed by Smt.Asha for the offences punishable under Sections 508, 306, 342, 363 of IPC, but there is no progress by the investigation agency either by filing the challan in respect of the crime against the accused or to file any other report as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is said that though several contentions has been taken for quashing the entire criminal proceedings by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but in the case on hand, it is not proper at this stage, as where the crime is yet to be investigated by the investigating agency to laying of the report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. :9: Consequently, this petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District relating to Crime No.266/2016 of Sarjapura Police Station, for compliance and to proceed further in accordance with law.
Consequent upon rejection of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB