Karnataka High Court
Sumitra Suryanarayan Banavasi vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 20 T H DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL PETI TION No.10557/2013
BETWEEN
1. SUMITRA SURYANARAYAN BANAVASI
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. C.P. BAZAR, SIRSI
2. SANJAY SURYANARAYAN BANAVASI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O. C.P. BAZAR, SIRSI
3. SURYANARAYAN NAGAPPA BANAVASI
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. C.P. BAZAR, SIRSI
..... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH S UDIKERI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SIRSI TOWN POLICE STATION,
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD
2
2. SURESH GANAPATHI SHET
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. C.P. BAZAR, SIRSI
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI ANANT HEGDE, ADV. FOR- R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
I-ADDL. JMFC, SIRSI, IN C.C.NO.1045/2012
(P.C.NO.193/2008) DATED 19.12.2012 PASSING AN ORDER
FOR REGISTERING CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506 OF IPC AND
TO ISSUE PROCESS/SUMMONS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS AND ACCEPT THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES.
THIS CRIMINAL PETI TION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the order dated 19.12.2012 in PC No.193/2008.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:
3
The second respondent instituted a suit in OS No.100/1996 seeking relief of declaration and mandatory injunction pertaining to a wall in between the houses of the parties. The suit came to be dismissed on merits, vide judgement and order dated 01.08.2008, the copy of which has been produced. Later, the second respondent filed an appeal in R.A No.50/2008 and an order of status-
quo was granted by the Appellate Court on 26.08.2008. Later, on 17.09.2008, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Court below in PC No.193/2008. In the said complaint, it is alleged that by violating the interim order of statusquo, the petitioners have damaged the wall and also gave life threat to him. This complaint was referred for investigation to the police, who in turn filed 'B' summary report. It is thereafter on a protest by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant (CW-1) and second respondent (CW-2) 4 and after perusal of the copy of the complaint and the statement of the witnesses has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. It is the order of the learned Magistrate, which is now challenged before this Court by way of this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint does not contain the facts relating to an offence but for violating the order of statusquo and therefore, learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
5. The learned HCGP supports the order of the learned Magistrate.
6. As the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the allegations in the complaint do constitute the offence of criminal intimidation 5 and further both the witnesses have stated in their statements before the Court below that the petitioners have given life threat, he submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
7. Perusal of the complaint reveals that there are three persons arrayed as accused No.1, 2, 3 and they are the petitioners herein. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance for other offences like Sections 427, 456, 477, 448, 447, 509 of IPC. The copy of the complaint has been produced by the petitioners at Annexure-B and it is stated in the complaint that the petitioners have violated the interim order granted by the Court in the appeal and on 15.09.2008, the petitioners had damaged the wall. The second respondent states in his statement that the petitioners gave threat to his life and it is mentioned in para 2 of the complaint as under:
6
"2. C¦Ã°£À°è ªÀiÁ£Àå ¹«¯ï £sÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ vÁjÃR 26- 08-2008 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 £ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄ UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ AiÀÄxÁ¹Üw PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ºÀÄPÀÄA ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EzÉ. »ÃVgÀĪÀ°è DgÉÆæ 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀª£ À ÀÄß PÉq« À gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D PÀÄjvÀÄ vÁjÃR 10-09- 2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ¥ÉÆðøÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄ zÁR°¹zÁÝ£É. DzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ 1 jAzÀ 3£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀ G®èAX¹ ªÉÆ£Éß vÁjÃR 15-09-2008 gÀAzÀÄ UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀ £Á±À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆævÀjUÉ F jÃw UÉÆÃqÉAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨sÁUÀª£ À ÀÄß £Á±À ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ zsPÀ ÁÌ ªÀiÁqÀ°PÉÌ C¢üPÁj«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀ ¨Á¢ü¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀªÀÄUÉ fêÀzÀ ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQ ºÉzj À ¸ÀÄvÁÛg.É 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ »gÉà ªÀÄUÀ £ÁUÀgÁd ºÁUÀÆ C½AiÀÄ£ÁzÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ÀgÁªÀ gÀªg À ÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁj £ËPÀgj À zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üU¼ À ÁVzÁÝgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ G½zÀ DgÉÆævÀjUÉ avÁªÀt ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛg.É DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ L ¦ ¹ PÀ®A 427, 456, 447, 448, 449, 504, 506 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è UÀÄ£Àß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛg.É PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ RmÉè ºÁPÀ®Ä CjPÉ EzÉ."
8. No where in the complaint there is any specification as to whether it is the first petitioner or the second petitioner or atleast the third petitioner gave any such threat to the complainant. 7 It is in general vague statement made in the complaint stating that a life threat was given by the petitioners. That apart, there is no mention as to the fact of life threat. Mere mentioning that there is a life threat was given itself is not sufficient to constitute an offence and the specific words uttered by the petitioners are like stated in the complaint. So in the absence of these facts in the complaint, I do not think that the mere say i.e. life threat was given would constitute an offence under Section 506 of IPC. That apart, even the complainant who has been examined as CW-1, in his statement as well states that petitioners have given life threat. In the statement as well he does not say anything as to the fact or the words uttered by the petitioners, while giving life threat to the complainant. It is no doubt, that the CW-2 states that a life threat was given stating that they will kill the complainant as to which of the petitioners said these words has not been stated by CW-2. Further more, mere say of 8 CW-2 itself is insufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. So in the absence of any material against the petitioners in the complaint, I do not think that the learned Magistrate has justified in taking cognizance for the said offence. That apart, a civil suit is pending and an order of statusquo was passed on 26.08.2008 and it is immediately after the order that made the complainant to file complaint i.e. on 17.09.2008. Further more, the complaint is referred to the police, who submitted 'B' summery report. This is only on the protest made by the second respondent that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.
9. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance and therefore the order deserves to be set aside.
9
10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 19.12.2012, in PC No.193/2012 is set aside. The proceedings are hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE Naa