Karnataka High Court
Hanamareddeppa S/O Beerappa vs Syed Ghalib Hashimi S/O Syed Hasham on 13 December, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15940 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMAREDDEPPA
S/O BEERAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS
OCC: PSI, GANDHI GUNJ P.S.
BIDAR
2. CHANNAVEERAPPA
S/O BASSANNA HADAPAD
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCC: RESERVE POLICE
INSPECTOR
HEAD QUARTERS, BIDAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BABURAO MANGANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SYED GHALIB HASHIMI
S/O SYED HASHAM
AGE: 33 YEARS
OCC: CONTRACTOR
2
R/O FAIZPURA, H.No.5-3-162
INFRONT OF DECENT FUNCTION HALL
DULHAN DARWAZA
BIDAR
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE TOWN POLICE STATION
BIDAR .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE (HUMAN RIGHTS) BIDAR, IN (PHR)
P.C.No.1/2012, DATED 06.08.2012, TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 342, 326,
504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND READ WITH
SECTION 2(d) OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT FOR VIOLATION OF
HUMAN RIGHT AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS AND
REGISTRATION OF A REGULAR CASE IN C.C. AND ISSUANCE
OF NOTICE TO ACCUSED AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.No.1/2012 PENDING AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE (HUMAN
RIGHTS) BIDAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
This petition is filed praying for quashing the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Court (Human Rights), Bidar in PHR No.1/2012, by 3 which the cognizance is taken against the petitioners and process is issued for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 326, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of IPC and read with Section 2(d) of Human Rights Act.
2. The complaint is lodged by respondent No.2 herein alleging that the complainant has suffered injuries and fracture of his hand which were caused by the petitioners while he was in illegal detention by petitioner No.1.
Similar allegations were made earlier by the complainant in his complaint lodged before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bidar in P.C.No.10/2011. In the said complaint also offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 341, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC were alleged. The Police after investigation filed 'B' report in P.C.No.10/2011. However, the complainant did not file 4 protest petition and consequently, 'B' report was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.05.2012 and P.C.No.10/2011 was closed. Thereafter, the complainant filed one more complaint before the Sessions Court (Human Rights), Bidar in PHR No.1/2012 alleging almost the very allegations. The said complaint was also referred to Superintendent of Police for investigation. The Superintendent of Police after investigation has laid 'B' report. However, the Human Rights Court did not accept the 'B' report and took the cognizance and issued process against the petitioners. The said order is impugned in this petition.
3. Learned advocates on both sides argued in respect of their case. Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Court and Human Rights Commission 5 Rules, 2005 submits that the sanction to prosecute the public servant is not obtained by the complainant and therefore, proceedings vitiate. He further argues that the second complaint based on the same allegations is not maintainable.
Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHESH CHAND v. B. JANARDHAN REDDY AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2003 SC 702 submits that second complaint is not barred. Particularly, when first complaint is dismissed without assigning any reason. However, Sri Baburao Mangane, learned advocate for the petitioners has tried to distinguish the said judgment on certain grounds.
4. Be that as it may, the Sessions Court did not have an opportunity to look into the said 6 aforementioned judgement as well as aforementioned rule. The Sessions Court should have taken into consideration all the necessary aspects of the matter before coming to the conclusion. Therefore, without observing anything on the merits of the matter, this Court prefers to remit the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Court (Human Rights) stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sessions Court, Bidar for fresh consideration as per law, keeping in mind the aforementioned observations.
The criminal petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
NB*