IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8321/2015 BETWEEN:
A.P. KUMAR MAJOR IN AGE, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALURU RURAL DIST. BENGALURU NOW AT PRESENT WORKING AS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR RAMANAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION RAMANAGAR TALUK & DIST. – 560 062. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
K. NATARAJ S/O. LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NOS.7 & 8, V “C” MAIN ROAD SANE GURUVANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 079. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) ***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN P.C.R.NO.275/2012 NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.6540/2015 TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES U/S.220, 324, 504 AND 506 OF I.P.C. AND ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings registered against him in C.C.No.6540/2015 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent is absent. Perused the material on record.
3. Respondent herein is a practicing advocate.
He filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking action against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 219, 220, 221, 323, 324, 504, 506(B) of IPC.
4. According to the complainant, on 16/03/2012 when the complainant and his friend Shankar had gone to the property of his father-in-law comprised in Sy.No.1/1, situated at Vajarahalli village, one Nanda Kumar, his wife Suma and his brother Nagaraj, all of a sudden came to the property of the complainant, abused him in filthy language and tried to assault the complainant, his friend Shankar and labourers. Hence, the complainant approached the Talaghattapura Police Station and lodged a complaint against Nanda Kumar and others. Accordingly, a case came to be registered in Crime No.336/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 427, 379, 323,506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. In that backdrop, on 03/07/2012, at about 11.00 p.m. accused came to the house of complainant’s father-in-law and dragged his father-in-law to the Police Station. He took some other members of his father-in-law’s family to the Police Station. Later, the accused summoned the aforesaid Nanda Kumar to the Police Station and got prepared a complaint against the complainant and others. On the basis of the false complaint, a criminal case was registered against the complainant and others in Crime No.415/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447,427, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. In respect of this incident complainant submitted a complaint against the accused before the I.G.P., D.I.G., Lokayukta and National Human Rights Commission, narrating the barbaric and inhuman act committed by the accused. On 09/07/2012 at about 7.30 p.m., complainant went to the accused along with his friend and questioned his illegal act. But the accused abused the complainant in filthy language and dragged out his revolver and threatened the complainant stating that he will finish him. Later, he hit the complainant on his face, as a result, complainant fell down. Before the complainant could get up, the other police personnel assaulted the complainant with ‘latti’ and assaulted on his back and shoulder and kicked him. When the friends of the complainant came to his rescue, accused cautioned them and threatened them stating that he would give same kind of treatment to them and also brand them as rowdy sheeters. On account of the torture caused on the complainant, he became tired and in the midnight he was taken to Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital.
5. Learned Magistrate, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and six witnesses. During the course of his sworn statement, complainant produced voluminous documents. Considering the same, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner. At that stage, petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash of the aforesaid proceedings.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the background in which the complaint is filed against the petitioner itself indicates that it is a sequel to the criminal case filed against the complainant, his father-in-law and other family members. Allegations made in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of any of the offences alleged in the FIR. Except the interested testimony of the complainant and his witnesses, no supporting documents are produced to show that the complainant has sustained any injuries during the alleged occurrence. Further, he submitted that even if it is assumed that such an incident has taken place, as alleged by the complainant, the alleged acts having been committed during the discharge of his official duties in the Police Station, no case could be filed against the petitioner without prior sanction as required under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Contending that the learned Magistrate has not considered any of these aspects, petitioner has sought to quash the impugned proceedings.
7. It is not the case of the complainant that either the petitioner or the Investigating Officer had summoned him for the purpose of interrogation in the case. According to the complainant, on 09/07/2012 he along with his friends approached the petitioner herein and questioned him about his illegal act. It is not forthcoming in the complaint as to what was the illegal act committed by the petitioner. The averments made in the complaint indicate that Crime Nos.415/2012 and 336/2012 were pending investigation. Even though there are allegations that the incident that had taken place in the Police Station and that the complainant was manhandled in the Police Station, he has not produced any document to show that during the occurrence he has sustained any injury. This assumes importance as the allegation made in the complaint discloses that in the midnight he was taken to Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital. Hospital records are not produced. Except the self interested version of the complainant, no other reliable material is available in proof of the fact that during the occurrence the complainant was manhandled and that he has sustained any injuries. In the said circumstances, there was no material before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 220, 324, 504 and 506 of I.PC.
8. That apart, the alleged incident is stated to have taken place in the Police Station while the petitioner was discharging his duties. As already stated above, it is not the case of the complainant that he was summoned to the Police Station for interrogation or in connection with any pending case. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that he himself had gone to the Police Station to question the accused. In the aforesaid circumstances, the incident having taken place, while the petitioner was discharging his official duty the prosecution of the petitioner without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and 170 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, cannot be sustained.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.6540/2015, pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.
However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in light of the observations made hereinabove, after obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs