Karnataka High Court
Mrs Mary Paul vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
R
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9206 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MRS.MARY PAUL
W/O MANUEL PAUL
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
VATSALYA CHARITABLE TRUST
KALYANA NAGAR
HRBR LAYOUT, BANASAWADI
BENGALURU-560 043. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA WEST POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. CHILDREN WELFARE COMMITTEE
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
2
SPL.CASE NO.187/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Special Case No.187 of 2016, pending on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The charge-sheet has been laid against the accused relating to Cr.No.73 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Accused No.1 Dr.Manjunath and Accused No.2 Ramachandra Rao being his father, arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.73 of 2013 and the crime came to be registered by the Mandya West Police Station, based upon the complaint given by the 3 petitioner/informant herein namely, Mrs. Mary Paul who has been arraigned as accused No.3 in the aforesaid crime.
2. Heard Shri J.Hudson Samuel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conference and Shri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who is physically present before the Court.
3. It is transpired from the case on hand that based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the first respondent had registered a case in Cr.No.73 of 2013 against one Manjunath and his father Ramachandra Rao for the aforesaid offences. The charge-sheet has been laid against the accused persons. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner being an Executive Director of a reputed institution has neglected and failed to report the aforesaid offences committed by accused 4 Nos.1 and 2 either to the police or to the Children Welfare Committee. Further, the Respondent-Police have shown the petitioner as 'absconding' accused in the charge- sheet. But by virtue of the allegations made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner that cognizance has been taken by the Special Judge in Special Case No.187 of 2016 for the offences which lugged against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid case.
4. It is relevant to state that accused No.1 Dr.Manjunath and his wife Kalavathi who did not have any issues, approached 'Vatsalya Charitable Trust' and evinced interest to adopt a girl child by name Renuka, and by virtue of the permission given under Order dated 16.01.2007 HAMA No.25091/2007 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, the said child Renuka was given in adoption to accused No.1 Manjunath and his wife Kalavathi, by the said Trust of which the petitioner herein is the Executive 5 Director. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the year 2011, the said adopted parents brought back the child Renuka to the said Trust, Bengaluru and informed them that the said child was not able to adjust with them, which was fortified by the statement of the child and letters written by the adopted parents to the Trust. It is the further case of the prosecution that the Trust along with the adopted parents brought the child and produced her before the Children Welfare Committee on 17.10.2012 and on that day, the girl gave a statement that she does not want to live with accused No.1 and his wife. It is the case of the complainant that as the Trust informed the complainant through phone that as the child does not want to go with the adopted parents and desires to be in the Trust, the Trust after obtaining an opinion, requested the complainant to permit them to retain the child with them. It is the case of the complainant that based on the statement given by the child, when the 6 accused Nos.1 and 2 were called upon to appear before the Committee, they have admitted about the commission of offence. Hence, the complainant had filed the aforesaid complaint before the Respondent Police for the aforesaid offences. Based on the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.73/2013 and the same was forwarded to the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya. However, in the charge-sheet filed by Respondent No.1 has implicated the petitioner herein as accused No.3 alleging that she being an Executive Director of the reputed institution, despite having the knowledge of the commission of the aforesaid offences by accused Nos.1 and 2, she failed to bring it to the notice of the Police or the Complainant Committee and hence, she also became part of the offence.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the role played by accused No.3/ petitioner relating to the charge-sheet laid by the 7 Investigating Officer contended that there are no ingredients to constitute the offences lugged against this accused and do not constitute of any offences punishable either under Sections 354, 376 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Even the documents produced by the complainant also does not disclose commission of offence by this accused. Despite of it, the Special Court in Spl.Case No.187/2016 has taken the cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner which is opposed to law and amounts to gross abuse of process of the Court.
The second limb of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though there is not even an iota of material alleged or produced that would suggest commission of criminal offence by the petitioner nor there is any material which has been produced that would suggest commission of offence by this petitioner to be punishable under Sections 354, 376 8 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Despite of it, this accused has been lugged in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer with an oblique motive to proceed against this accused in the charge-sheet for the offences leveled against her. These are all the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.Case No.187/2016 by allowing this petition as sought for.
It is relevant to refer that certain material documents has been produced in support of their contentions along with a memo. The documents are, a letter from Dr.Manjunath who is arraigned as accused No.1 to the Executive Director, Vatsalya Charitable Trust, Bengaluru, In-patient Registration slip indicating the name of the victim girl, date on which sent to NIMHANS, medical examination report and a letter by the said Trust addressed to the Inspector, Mandya West Gate. 9
6. On the other hand, the learned HCGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that there is a role of this accused in committing an offence and also accused Nos.1 and 2 against the victim girl who is a minor being adopted by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 used to assault the victim girl and were also committing sexual assault on the victim girl being a minor. The petitioner herein did not give any information immediately to Respondent No.2 to take stringent action or any process against accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioner being arraigned as accused No.3 and does not deserve to seek quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against her in Spl.Case No.187 of 2016 and sought to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the contentions as taken by the counsel for the petitioner and so also the counter arguments addressed by the learned HCGP for the State, 10 it is relevant to refer that based upon an information given by the complainant, Mandya West Police have registered a case in Cr.No.73/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of I.P.C. besides under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Having gone through the material allegations that were secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation in order to lay charge-sheet against the accused persons in Spl.Case No.187 of 2016, it discloses that accused No.1 Dr.Manjunath and his father accused No.2, Ramachandra Rao alleged to have sexually abused the victim girl who is a minor being an adopted daughter of accused No.1 and his wife. On the basis of the information given by the victim girl to the Executive Director of Vatsalya Charitable Trust who is accused No.3, she had given information to the Mandya West Police and based on that information, case in Cr.No.73/2013 came to be registered and thereafter, the 11 Investigating Officer thoroughly made the investigation and laid the charge-sheet before the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya, whereas accused Nos.1 and 2 have to face the trial in Spl.Case No.187 of 2016. It is necessary to state that when once the FIR came to be registered by the police, it is the duty cast upon the Investigating Agency to proceed with the case for investigation and to collect the material documents relating to the offences leveled against the accused persons. But in the instant case, the petitioner being an Executive Director who has been arraigned as accused No.3 in Cr.No.73 of 2013 and based upon her information only, and also based upon the statements and information given by the victim girl, she had approached the Respondent Police to register the crime and then proceeded with the case for investigation. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has investigated the case thoroughly and laid the charge-sheet but it is the duty 12 cast upon the Trial Court to segregate the materials and also to sort out the material evidence, that was collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation. But accused Nos.1 and 2 are the culprits relating to the sexual assault on the victim girl being a minor and also the adopted daughter of accused Nos.1 and his wife namely Kalavathi. When once the charge- sheet has been laid against the accused, it consists of the statement of witnesses and so also the mahazar said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation has to be assessed, that whether there are enough materials against the accused No.3. The witnesses on the part of the prosecution is also required to be tested and also subjected to cross- examination whatever the defence as taken on the part of the accused persons. Thereafter, only the appreciation of the evidence is vested with the Trial Court alone. But in the instant case, at this stage, it does not require to be 13 dealt in detail in respect of the facts and material allegations in the form of an evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation, where A1 and A2 require to facing up of trial. It is the duty cast upon by the prosecution and also prerogative power to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthy evidence in respect of the offence lugged against the accused. But this petitioner being arraigned as accused No.3, merely because she did not furnish the information immediately either to the Police or the Complainant Committee and merely because the first respondent has filed the charge-sheet showing the petitioner as 'absconding' accused, it cannot be said that there are any enough materials against the accused to proceed with the case to face up trial. However, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge-sheet against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., merely because laying the charge-sheet against 14 the petitioner being arraigned as accused No.3, it cannot be said that there are strong prima-facie materials against the accused to commit the allege offence. But it is the duty cast upon the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence facilitated by the prosecution and to arrive at a right conclusion. Therefore, at this stage, there is no requirement by this Court to go through the materials in detail, which was secured by the Investigating Officer.
However Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only if there is any miscarriage of justice or any abuse of process of law, with Judicially, Judiciously and cautiously. But in the instant case, certainly, the concept is emerged in the Court of law for consideration of grounds, which are urged by the counsel for the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in so far as the petitioner herein who arraigned as accused No.3.
In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
15
ORDER
i) The petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.3 is hereby allowed.
ii) The proceedings in Spl.Case No.187 of 2016 arose in Cr.No.73 of 2013 against accused No.3/petitioner, by name, Mrs.Mary Paul is quashed.
However, it is made clear that whatever the observations made in this order shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court while disposing the case in respect of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The said case shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law, by keeping open all contentions on the part of the prosecution as well as the defence.
Sd/-
JUDGE DH