IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3961 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3962 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3961 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
MR BADRINARAYANA JAGANATHAN VICE PRESIDENT, IT APP MANAGEMENT, EMPLOYED AT JUNIPER NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 5TH FLOOR, WING B, ELECTRA BUILDING, PRESTIGE TECH PARK ORR, BANGALORE 560037 ... PETITIONER (By SRI: C K NANDAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY H.A.L POLICE STATION, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H.A.L POLICE STATION, MARAHATHALLI, BANGALORE 560037 2. Ms. PARUL KAUSHIK D/O DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDING AT NO.138,3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, II STAGE, AREKERE M.I.C.O LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: S.GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT: PRIYANKA S. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53073/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE X A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS THE PETR. IS CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3962 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Ms MADHUSHREE DATTA DAUGHTER OF LATE ARUP KUMAR DATTA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.218, FIRST FLOOR, "B" BLOCK, RR RESIDENCY, HSR LAYOUT,2ND SECTOR EXTN, HARLAKUNTE VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE 560103 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: C K NANDAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY H.A.L POLICE STATION, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, H.A.L POLICE STATION, MARAHATHALLI, BANGALORE 560037 2. Ms. PARUL KAUSHIK D/O DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDING AT NO.138,3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, II STAGE, AREKERE M.I.C.O LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: S.GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT: PRIYANKA S. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53073/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE X A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS THE PETR. IS CONCERNED.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R These two petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against them in C.C.No.53073/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 509, 511, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised four fold contentions. First, initially the case was registered by the police as NCR and therefore without an order of the learned magistrate as provided under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., police could not have proceeded with the investigation. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in SUDARSHAN MANCHANDA & ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in ILR 1979 KAR 2145.
Second, the allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted on their face value, would go to show that the grievance of respondent No.2/complainant relates to her employment, which is purely civil in nature, in respect of which, a labour dispute is pending before the Labour Court. Third, the averments made in the charge sheet do not disclose the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners, much less, the offences under sections 323, 509, 511, 504 and 506 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the laptop belonging to the company was asked to be returned by the petitioners and the same does not constitute any criminal offence. The other allegations made in the charge sheet that the personal data of the complainant was not returned to her is not the subject matter of any of the charges and hence the prosecution of the petitioners for the above offences is illegal. Lastly, it is contended that the alleged offences, even if accepted as true, are stated to have been committed by the company, which is not made a party to the proceedings. Placing reliance on the decision of SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI vs. SANGITA RANE, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781, learned counsel would submit that the company having not been arrayed as accused, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly illegal and amount to abuse of process of Court.
3. Disputing the submissions, learned counsel for second respondent/complainant and learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the material collected by the prosecution clearly make out the ingredients of the above offences and thus prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
4. Further, learned Addl. SPP submitted that the offence under section 509 IPC is a cognizable offence, even, then, requisite permission was obtained by the investigating officer prior to the registration of FIR and hence, there is no illegality in the procedure followed by the Investigating Officer.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. It is submitted at the Bar that as on the date of the alleged offence, respondent No.2 was an employee of M/s.Juniper Networks India Private Limited, Bengaluru. It is not in dispute that she was served with a termination notice only after the alleged incident. According to the complainant, on 25.10.2013, she was forced to tender resignation and when she protested, force was used against her to return the laptop and during the occurrence, she was assaulted and warned with dire consequences. These allegations, in my view, prima-facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Unless the complainant was served with termination notice, petitioners being employees of the company could not have used force against a co-employee. Therefore, the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint do not prima-facie disclose the ingredients of criminal offences, cannot be accepted.
6. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioners assailing the procedure followed by the investigating agency in registering the case is concerned, the material on record indicate that the offences alleged against the petitioners include cognizable as well as non-cognisable offences. Even otherwise, mere lapse in investigation by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. That apart, records reveal that the investigating officer has obtained authorization under section 155(2) Cr.P.c. before registration of the FIR. As a result, even this contention cannot be taken as a ground to quash the proceedings.
7. Coming to the next contention that the company is required to be made as an accused is concerned, the allegations made in the complaint go to show that the alleged offences have not been committed by the company but by the employees of the company without the authority of the company. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were authorized to use force against the complainant and seek return of the laptop, therefore, this contention also, in my view, does not entitle the petitioners for the relief sought for in the petitions.
8. As a result, I do not find any merit in the petitions.
Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-