Karnataka High Court
Tavanappa S/O Kallappa Raval vs The State Of Karnataka, on 13 March, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13FF DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NKESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11290/2011
BETWEEN:
Tavanappa S/o Kallappa Raval,
Age: 50 years,
0cc: Business and Agriculture,
R/o Banahatti,
Tq: Jamakhandi,
District: Bagalkot. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Banahatti Police Station
Banahatti, Tq: Jamakhandi,
District: Bagalkot
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High court of Karnataka Circuit
Bench Building at Dharwad,
District: Dharwad. . . . Respondent
(By Sri.Anand K. Navaldimath, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C,No.230/2011 for an offence p/u/Ss. 292, 497 and 420
of IPC pending on the file of the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC,
Banahatti, by allowing this petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.No.230/ 11 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMPC, Barthatti, has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 497 and 420 of IPC.
2. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking of cognizance for the offence under Section 497 of IPC on a police report is without jurisdiction in the light of the provisions of Section 198 of Cr.P.C. In so far as two other offences alleged, it is the contention of the petitioner that the materials available on record does not make out any of those offences and therefore the learned Magistrate is not justified in taking cognizance of those offences.
3. According to the prosecution, on 15.5.20i I Mr.Ravinarayana, DSP, Jamakhandi received credible information that the petitioner herein has indulged in sending obscene photographs taken with a lady through 3 mobile and internet and in that back ground there is every possibility of public peace being disturbed in the locality and immediately on enquiry he learnt that the petitioner has been indulging in such activities. Therefore, he lodged a report to the Station House Officer, Banhatti Police along with a pen drive containing the obscene photographs of the petitioner herein with another lady and being distributed through mobile and internet. On the basis of the said report, the Banhatti Police registered the case in Crime No.56/2011 initially for the offence punishable under Section 292-A and 497 IPC and took up investigation. During investigation, on the basis of the evidence collected, offence under Section 420 IPC was also included. After completing the investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 497 and 420 IPC came to be filed. The learned Magistrate, on perusal of the charge sheet and the documents produced, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and ordered issue of summons to the petitioner -- accused. 4 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this petition.
4. In so far as the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC is concerned. I see considerable force in the contention of the petitioner. Section 497 IPC falls under Chapter XX of IPC. Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C. directs that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the said offence. As per sub-section (2) of Section 198 Cr.P.C., for the purpose of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under Section 497 or Section 498 of IPC. in the case on hand, admittedly, the husband of the woman who was seen in the obscene pictures has not lodged any complaint as contemplated under Section 198 Cr.P.C. As per the definition of "complaint" found in Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., it does not include a police report. According to this definition, "complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence.
5. As noticed supra. cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. after investigation. Therefore, in view of the bar created under Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction or authority to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC in the absence of any complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. by aggrieved person namely husband of the woman. Therefore, cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 497 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction, as such it is liable to be quashed. However, on perusal of the materials produced along with the charge sheet, I am of the considered opinion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 6 292 and 420 of IPC and the order of taking cognizance for those offences does not call for interference by this Court.
6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in part. The order of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC on a police report is hereby quashed. However, the prosecution launched against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 492 and 420 IPC shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.
Sd! 3UDG RS /