IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8129 OF 2018 Between:
1. Muthaiah, S/o. Dasappa, Aged 38 years, R/at Police Quarters, Channapatna, Ramanagara District-562 160.
2. Praveen.G.N, S/o. Nanjappa, Aged 28 years, R/at Police Quarters, Channapatna, Ramanagara District-562 160.
3. Mallikarjuna.K.A, S/o. Amruthesh, Aged 23 years, R/at Police Quarters, Channapatna, Ramanagara District-562 160.
4. Nagaraju, S/o. Ningegowda, Aged 45 years, R/at Alaguru Town, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District-562 123. …Petitioners (By Sri.Manjunath B.R, Advocate) And:
1. Hanumanthaiah, S/o. Late Maridevaru, Aged 52 years, R/of Archakarahalli, Ramanagara-571 511.
2. Anand, S/o. Nanjaiah, Aged about 30 years, R/of Muladoddi, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District-562 120. … Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 23.06.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.29/2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara and also set aside the order dated 01.09.2017 passed in PCR No.91/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Channapatna registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506, 355 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard Sri.Manjunath.B.R, learned advocate for the petitioners.
2. Petitioners are police personnel. Second respondent was facing trial in C.C.No.1115/2016 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna. First respondent is his advocate. On 21.06.2017, the respondents complained to the learned trial Judge that petitioners sought to apprehend Respondent No.2 while he was standing outside the Court even though he was not involved in any case and assaulted both the respondents. Learned trial Judge directed the office to register a criminal case. He recorded statements of both respondents. By order dated 01.09.2017 in PCR No.91/2017, learned trial Judge took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 355 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.29/2017. By order dated 23.06.2018, said revision petition has been partly allowed. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the impugned order so far as it relates to issuing process as against the second accused and the other portion of the impugned order remains undisturbed. Petitioners have called in question both the orders passed by the learned trial Judge and the learned Sessions Judge.
3. Sri.Manjunath.B.R, learned advocate for the petitioners has made the following submissions:
that the impugned order is not an order taking cognizance of offence;
that as required under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., respondents ought to have approached the police and only if police had refused to take any action, they could have approached the learned Magistrate; and that the petitioners were discharging their duty as police personnel and therefore, sanction was mandatory under Section 197 Cr.P.C;
4. Amplifying his contentions, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that if the respondents have any grievance, they ought to have approached the police authorities at the first instance. Without doing so, they directly made a complaint to the learned Magistrate. The learned trial Judge has not recorded that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law.
5. A careful perusal of the ordersheet dated 21.06.2017 reveals that at about 12.30 p.m., on the said day, the second respondent and his advocate (the first respondent) hurriedly came into the Court hall and submitted that accused persons tried to take second respondent to the police station though he was not involved in any case and that they assaulted him and his advocate. Learned Magistrate has directed the office to register a case and thereafter, recorded their statements. He has issued process by a detailed order dated 01.09.2017. In Para No.16 of the order, he has recorded thus:
“ Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations and the corroborated testimony of the complainants and documents, this court is of the view that the complainants have made out sufficient grounds to take cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 355 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly, I answer this point in the affirmative.”
(Emphasis Supplied) 6. Learned Sessions Judge, for the reasons recorded in his order, has partly allowed the revision petition.
7. With regard to the first contention urged by learned advocate for the petitioners that the learned trial Judge has not taken cognizance of the offence, Paragraph 16 of the learned trial Judge’s order clearly shows that he has applied his mind and taken cognizance of the offence. With regard to the second contention that the complainants ought to have approached the police before approaching the Magistrate, it is to be noted that the incident has occurred in the court premises and the accused persons are Police Personnel. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.2 was facing trial in a criminal case pending before the learned trial Judge. The allegations also include assault on both respondents. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate, in my view has rightly registered the case and after recording the statements, taken cognizance of the offence and issued process. The argument that the respondents ought to have approached the police at the place of incident is incongruous because the complaint is against the police personnel. It is the specific case of respondents that the second respondent was not involved in any offence, yet the police personnel sought to apprehend him. No material is placed before this Court to show that there were any other cases pending and the police personnel were discharging their official duty. In the circumstances, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against petitioners. Hence, the third ground that the sanction was necessary also fails.
8. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Session Judge.
9. Resultantly, this Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*