IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SMT GARIMA GROVER W/O VISHAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. SRI VISHAL S/O BHARAT RAJ MATA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, THE ABOVE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT KAILAGIRI APARTMENTS, NO.24/7, 7TH CROSS, NAGAVARPALYA MAIN ROAD, NAGAVARPALYA, C.V.RAMAN, BENGALURU-560048.
(BY SRI. SUNIL.S.RAO,FOR SRI. T.SESHAGIRI.RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560048.
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER.
(BY SRI. S.T.NAIK, HCGP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED BY THE L ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-51) IN SPL.C.C.NO.511/2017 IN SO FAR AS TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIOENRS FOR THE OFFENCES PU/S 370(4), 306,420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.75 OF J.J ACT, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.511/2017 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF THE L ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-51).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri Sunil S.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Perused the case papers.
2. Petitioners who were arraigned as Accused Nos.6 & 7 in Spl. C.C.No.511/2017 registered for the offences punishable u/s.370(4), 306, 420 r/w. Sec.34 of I.P.C. and Sec.75 of Juvenile Justice Act, are before this Court for quashing of the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru taking cognizance for the alleged offences aforesaid and have also sought for quashing of entire proceedings.
3. It is the contention of Mr. Sunil Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that learned trial judge has passed an order on 11.10.2017 without judicious application of mind and the very fact that there is verbatim repetition of the offences indicated in the charge sheet which has been extracted by mechanical and stereo type approach would indicate that said order came to be passed without application of mind and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed. He also submits that learned trial judge ought to have perused the entire material and examined as to whether there was any link with regard to the complicity of the accused to the offences and thereafter ought to have passed an order taking cognizance. In other words, learned counsel submits that there should have been due application of mind. He also submits that even according to prosecution, Accused No.1 was a human resource service provider who had outsourced the deceased all the way from Assam by entering into a service provider agreement and as such deceased has been deputed to the house of Accused No.5 at Bengaluru and on the fateful day of her death which was due to fall from top floor of the building was an accident and is sought to be projected as suicide committed by the deceased and that aspect has not taken note of at the time of cognizance being taken. He would also submit that only allegation against petitioners was to the effect that deceased was a minor at the time of death. On these grounds he seeks for quashing of the proceedings as well as the impugned order. Per contra, the learned HCGP would support the prosecution.
4. Having heard the learned Advocate and on perusing the charge sheet material, it would clearly disclose that a allegation has been made that 1st petitioner’s mother had obtained the services of the deceased to work as a domestic help on account of 1st petitioner-Accused No.6 having conceived, and as such to attend to her needs during the pregnancy period and as such deceased was deputed to the house of the petitioners. The witnesses who have been examined by the Investigating Officer has stated on these lines and as such it is for the prosecution to prove the alleged acts of the petitioners and at the stage of considering the prayer for quashing the proceedings, this Court would not examine the probable defence and thereby stifling the proceedings of the trial Court at the threshold and particularly when the allegations made in the complaint would disclose a cognizable offence. Hence, in the light of said charge sheet material produced by the prosecution, learned trial judge has taken cognizance of the offences and it is trite law that at the time of taking cognizance the alleged offence an elaborate and lengthy order is not required to be passed. Judicious application of mind, if can be discovered from the impugned order, same would suffice. In the instant case, learned trial judge has stated under the impugned order that he has perused the police report and this would also show that there is judicious application of mind.
It is stated by the learned counsel that they have already submitted arguments for discharging of accused and if it is so, it is for the learned trial Judge to examine all such contentions and materials which the petitioner- accused have relied upon and to pass appropriate orders thereon. However, no opinion is expressed in that regard and it is for the learned trial Judge to examine such material on merits.
In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Snb/