Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Krishnappa S/O Late G Kenchappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2009
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
4-
IN THE HIGH C03RT OF KARNA$AKA, BANQALORE
DATED THIS THE 1?T3 DAY OF APRIL, 2099
BEFORE
THE HOfl'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAHJULA CHELLUR
CRL.P.N0.4752/2005
BETWEEN
1. Sri B.K.Krishnappa,
S/Q Late G.Kenchappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Gac: Business.
2. Dr'Srinivasa,
fife B.K.Kxishnappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Occ; fientist.
3. Smt.Nagamani,
W70 B.K.Krishnappa,
Aged abaut 52 years,
Gee: Kouse work,
4. Ms.B.K.Po¢rnima,
D/o B.K.Krishnaypa,
Aged about 24 years,
Oaa: student.
all Rfo Hb.3, Central Street,
Kumara Eark wast,
Bangalore-560 620.
(By $ri.S.P.Kulkarni, Adv.)
EETITIORERS
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rapté. by Sheshadxipuram Palice,
Bangalore
Row raptd. By state P.?.High Court
Of Karnataka Building,
Bangalore-560 001 .
2. A Shivanand. @ Anand,
Age: Major,
§ 3, 6"' Cross, Central Stxeet,
Kumar Park West,
Banga.'Lcxe--20 . . . . RESPOREENTS
{By $x:i..Sath.ish R.Girj:i., I-ECG}? for R.1
sri.G.M.Parmash, Adv. for 13.2))
This C::1.P. is filed under Section 482 of
CR.P.C: by the Advocate for the petitsaeners
praying that this Hoxvble Court may be pleased to
quash the ¢amp1aintfFxR, filed. in CR.No.221/2005
registered by the Sheshadripurazzz Police, pending
befcsre the 3.0'. , and 5391. Judge, Bangalore City,
Bangalore under se<:tions.3 and 4 of SCKST £9.21.)
Act 198? anti also Seas. 323 and 506 of IPC being
arbltxaxy, errcneous not maintainahle anci being
abuse of process of Court.
whis Crl. Qetition causing on for Adrnissiczzz
this flay, the court made the follawing:
$3933
I-iearé the ieaxneé Ccsunsei. fax the
petitioners and the learned Gavermzzent Advacate
fax the xespandents.
2. The brief facats that led to the filing of
criminal cases against these petitionera are as
under:
The 1" accusad --- getitioner no.1 herein. said
to have gone the office af the czoxrrglainant
Shivananda on 16.10.2805 and threatened the
cotttyiainant - 2"" respondent herein that if he
brought witnesses on 3.'?.3.G.2005 to the Ceurt to adducze avidance aqainat him, he would finish off the complainant. He demanded. the coztplainaxzt to come out af the office and the aacused £30.}. and his son firagged him out of the office using filthy language against his caste and assaulted him an his neck and back with club. Later, wife and ciaughter of accused no.1 also joirzed. in the inciéent and all cf them by using filthy language:
agaiast the aanplainant tried to assault him with stones and "iquciugoltfi . The czmvplainant managed ta eseape and rushed towards Sheshadxipuraxn police station. Accused 1 & 2 fcallowed the complainant on a twc wheeler threatening him if he were to give a compliant, they would finish him off and his family. fihe whole day his wife and daughter abused him taking his casta, threw rubbish on hm and gnntally tortured him. wken he along with his lawyer Paramesh lodged a camplaint an 18.10.2005 at 11.90 'p.fiL which is registered in C.."*::;ime §o.221/2006.
3. The incident in the present case said ta have taken place on 16.10.2005. However, while filing this petitisxz under section 482 Cr.P.C far quashing of prc>¢eedings pending before the trial Court in CR.NO.22.'2.f2005, details of cases, which were already filed and the result of the same was narrated by the petitianers. Several caseis were pending and subsequently, severa}. criinixzal cases came to be initiated against these petitianers.
4. So far as Crime R9223./'2€3{}5 and"
CC.8:£;'2004, the prasent twc petitioners are before this couxt anfi stay of the proceedings before the trial ceurt was made. Therefore, these matters are still pending.
5. The min contention of the petitioners is, the investigation in this case was not done by an Gfficer as contemplated under Rule 7 oi the Schednle= Castes and. Schedule Tribes {Prevention cf Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'). Tfierefore, the entire investigatien is vitiated and the yroceeéings before the trial aourt éeserve ta be quashed.
6. The learned Government Afiveeate hands ever entixe file pertaining to Cr1.?.4?S2X2065 in aréer ta know what happened at diffierent stages cf investigation done by different police effieers to aseextein whether there was vieletien ef Rule ? of the Rules.
7. Rule 3 cf the Rules xeeds ee under:
"Ru1e«?: Investigating Offieerw {1} an offenee eommitted under the Amt shall be investigated by e Eeliee Qfficser not below the rank of e fleputy Superintendent of fioliae.
The Investigating Officer shall be appcainted. by the State Gevernment/£)i::ector--General of Police/Superintendent at' Police after taking into account his past experiencze, sense of ability and justice to perceive the inplieations of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shertest possible time.
{2} The Investigating Ofificer sc appointed under sub-rule {1} shall complete the investigation an tap priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police whca in turn will izmnediately forward the report to the £'::i.rec:tor--Genera.l of Felice of the State Government.
{3} 'fine Heme Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Gevernrcsent , Dirac: tor of Prosecution, the offieerwinwcharge of firosecution and the Direaterw General of 9ol:i.ee shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all inveetigations dame by the Investigating Offiaer.
3. Reading or' Rule 7 inéicates that any imrestigatican pertaining to any of the effenees punishable under the Speeial Act cmzld. be done bye an Gfficzer not below the rank ef Deputy Szzperintenfient of Poliee. 'The second condition requires that suczh investigating Officer shall be appointed. by the State Government or D9? or S}? after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and fgustice, so that he would be able to proceed with the investigation of the case having regarfci to the substantive issues involved in the matter. The file woulci ;§.n<i.:i.,<:a.te that same Ajjappavfiaci? was appointed as requireci under the rules by order dated 18.10.2805; first infemsatien was registereé; 133; PSI and the investigation was taken up by this Ajjappa, whc was Assistant Cozrmissionerf equivalent to Beputy Superintendent af Police" The incident accurred ox: 16519.2-$65 and the notification and the end.c>rsezmnt as required under Rule 7 0f the Rules came to be issued or: §..4,63.2€3G3 32.9., nearly Ewe anzsiwawhaif gears later «
9. gm: going through the entire reaexds ftxrnishefi. by Gcvernment Anfivocate it is zwticed that though Rule '2 is coIn§3..i.e& in this cage, thera was we application sf mind for régifitxafiion {Itf a case under the provisions of the special enactzmnt as the entire cantents of ccngalaint no where indicates to whiah caste the petitionersw ac-cuseé beiong to. On account of these deficits, the investigatian done with reference to the offence yunishable. under the special enacztmezat and the consequemzes also gets vitiated under proceedings ,
19. That apart, the Supreme Ccmri: in the case of STATE OF HARYAIEIA 'ARE QTEERS V. CH. BAJZAN LEE M65 0'1i'IiER$ reperted. in AIR 1992 SC 604 has clearly held that the Courts have ta put an and tc: frivelaus and false czomplaints whenever it is apyarent an recorci that in czrder to wreck vangeasme such frivolcrms coztglaints ara lodged. In other wards, the Czmzrti has ten refer to tfie facts axzé. aircmzmtances surraunciing the parties why such ccnglaints are ladged again arzé. again against the petitivoners through kit}: anti kin.
*9?
ii. fhe Supreme Court in the said case at para 188 has held as under:
" In the backdrop of the interpretatien ef the verieus relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and czf the principles of law enunciated by this Ceurt in a series of éecisiens relating to the exercise of the extraordinary pcss-erer under Article 226 er the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice? though it may not be peseible ts lay dawn any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently ehanrxeliseci and inflexible guidelines or rigid fernmlae and ta give an exhaustive liet of myriad kinds of cases wherein suah power should be exercised.
3., Where the allegatione made in the First Enfertmation liepert er the eezzplairst, even if they are taken at their face value and acaepted in their entirety fie not grima facie constitute any cffence ex flake out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accampanying the F.I.R. da not disclose a aognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers undex Section 156(1) 0f the Code exaept under an order of a fiagistrate Within tha purview of Seation 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted aleqations mafia in the FIR or aampiant and the evidence collected in support af the same fin not disclose the commissian of any offence and wake out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the E.EaR. do not constitute a. csgnizable offence but aonstitnte only a nanw eognizable offence, no investigatian ifi permitted by a. police officer withaut an. order af a Magistrate as contamlateé unéer section 155(2) of the Code.
i _;;_ 5; Where the allegations made in the FIR or comglaint aro so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafteo in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted} to the institution and continuance of the prooeedings andfor where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
?. Where a criminal proceeding is nmnifestly attended with rain fide and/or where the prooeeoing is maliciously institnted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the aocuseé with a View to spite him dns to private and persona; grudge."
12$ The very fast that several cases are initiated against these petitioners including oases through kith and kin would only go to show i that the main intention in lodging such carrplaints against the petitioners and their family rrertber.-3 was to wreak vengeance or corrgz-el than 'he do things to the satisfaction of the:
persons at whose instance the aomplaqmts are laciged.
13. accordingly, the proceedings in grime Nc.221;'2605 registered by the sheshaciripuram yolice station are quashed. Sd/__ JUDGE