Karnataka High Court
Sri. S.A. Ramadas vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2340
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6153 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. A. RAMADAS
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE ASWATHNARAYANA RAO
R/A #1063/77A
1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS
VIDYARANYAPURAM
MYSORE-570008
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ASHOK G.V. ADVOCATE FOR
Ms: SAHANA B V, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOK PURAM POLICE STATION
REPRESENED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
OPP. TO VIDHAN SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
EDITOR
SUDDI SUGGI PAKSHIKA PATRIKE
#335, BANDIPALYA
2
GANAPATHI ASHRAMA POST
MYSURU-570025
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED-UNREPRESENED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2018 IN
CRL.RP.NO.112/2017 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.10.2020 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
3 This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the revisional order passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Criminal Revision Petition No.112/2007 dated 09.05.2018 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the 'B' summary report filed by the Investigating Officer and has directed the learned Magistrate to deal with the matter afresh in accordance with law after taking cognizance on the protest petition filed by the petitioner/complainant. 3
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the offence alleged against the petitioner related to the year 1987-93. The delay in initiating criminal action has not been explained by the complainant. The Investigating Officer has clearly opined that it is not possible to verify the correctness of the charges leveled against the petitioner at this length of time. The protest petition filed by the complainant does not disclose the facts constituting the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The complainant did not aver that the protest petition is to be treated as complaint. Therefore, the revisional Court has committed an error in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
4. I do not find any merit in the submission urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not sought to quash the impugned proceedings on the above grounds. The revision petition was filed before the Sessions 4 Court against the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the 'B' summary report. Though it was an interlocutory order, yet it was amenable for revisional jurisdiction since the order passed by the learned Magistrate has the effect of finally terminating the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in the matter and having found that the learned Magistrate has proceeded to accept the 'B' summary report solely based on the opinion of the Investigating Officer without considering the evidence and the material collected during the investigation, has found it proper to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remand the same for consideration of the 'B' summary report afresh. The reasoning of the revisional Court find place in paragraph 21 of the impugned order, which is extracted hereunder:
"21. While discussing the material on record, it appears that the learned Magistrate has not looked into any of the documents, but has totally placed reliance on the grounds/reasons given by the investigation Officer for filing 'B' Report. This fact is amply clear from Para-8 of 5 the impugned Order where the reasons given by the I.O is extracted and no further reasoning is given by the learned Magistrate. Vague reasons are assigned at Para 11 of the impugned Order stating that Complainant has not furnished any material to proceed against the accused/2nd Respondent for the alleged offences. Further, the reasons assigned at Para 11 that Complainant has failed to examine witnesses and that the facts are civil in nature which can be dealt by 'concerned authority' are also vague and unacceptable. On plain reading of the impugned Order, it appears to have scripted only to accept the final 'B' report that came to be filled by the City Crime Branch on flimsy and baseless grounds. As the Complainant has demonstrated before this Court that the impugned Order is a result of non-application of mind by the Court below resulting in grave injustice, I am of the opinion that the Order deserves to be set aside, which I hereby do by answering Point for consideration in the affirmative."6
5. I do not find any error or infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of remand made by him. The procedure to be followed by the learned Magistrate on receipt of 'B' summary report is now well settled. Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal', (1980) SCC (2) 91, this Court in 'Dr. Ravi Kumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha and Another', ILR 2018 KAR 1725, has enumerated the guidelines to be followed by the courts and the Magistrate dealing with the 'B' summary report as under:-
"5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is well recognized principle of law that, once the police submit 'B' Summary Report and protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of the protest petition, the court has to examine the contents of 'B' Summary Report so as to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the court has got some options to be followed, which are,-7
I. "The court after going through the contents of the investigating papers, filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C., is of the opinion that the investigation has not been done properly, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Police to file the charge sheet however, the Court may direct the Police for re or further investigation and submit a report, which power is inherent under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, but before taking cognizance such exercise has to be done. This my view is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1968 S.C. 117 between Abhinandan Jha and Dinesh Mishra (para 15) and also Full Bench decision of Apex Court reported in (1980) SCC 91 between Kamalapati Trivedi and State of West Bengal.
II. If the court is of the opinion that the material available in the 'B' Summary Report makes out a cognizable case against the accused and the same is sufficient to take cognizance, and to issue process, then the court has to record its opinion under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., and the Court has got power to take cognizance on the contents of 'B' Summary Report and to proceed against the accused, by issuance of process.8
III. If the court is of the opinion that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court has to reject the 'B' Summary Report.
IV. After rejection of the 'B' Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Sec.200 Cr.P.C."
6. The learned Magistrate having accepted the 'B' summary report without passing a judicious order and without considering the material on record the revisional Court was justified in setting aside and remanding the 9 matter and therefore no fault could be found with the impugned order warranting interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It also needs to be mentioned that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with the procedure/guidelines laid down in the above decision as observed in paragraph 18 of the impugned order.
7. As a result, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
8. The Trial Court is directed to follow the procedure laid down in Kamalapati Trivedi's case, which is followed by this Court in 'Dr. Ravi Kumar vs. Mrs.K.M.C. Vasantha and another.
SD/-
JUDGE TL