IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI Crl.P. No.6959/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Manojith Basu s/o late Asit Kumar Basu Aged 44 years, Indu Heights Apartment, Bangalore-560093.
2. Smt.Padma Basu w/o late Asit Kumar Basu Aged 67 years, r/a No.18/2 Motilal Ray Lane, Bhadrakali Hooghly Dist, West Bengal – 712 232. … Petitioners (By Sri Manjunath B R, Advocate) [ AND:
1. State of Karnataka by Mahadevapura Police Bangalore City Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001.
2. Smt.Shamashree Basu d/o Arup Kumar Ghosh Aged 39 years, r/a No.3-E S N Residency-4 Belleghatta Main Road Kolkata – 700 085. ... Respondents (By Sri R D Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, Sri Yogesh V Kotenath for Sri P H Virupakshaiah, Advocate for R2) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the additional charge sheet filed against the petitioners in CC No.23205/2009 dated 5.2.2014 pending on the file of the Hon’ble XLIII ACMM, Mayo Hall, at Bangalore and quash the order dated 1.9.2018 passed by the XLIII ACMM, Mayo Hall at Bangalore in CC No.23205/2009.
This petition is coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Quash the additional charge sheet filed against the petitioners in CC No.23205/2009 dated 5.2.2014 pending the file of Hon’ble XLIII Addl. CMM, Mayo Hall at Bangalore;
(b) Quash the order dated 1.9.2018 passed by the XLIII Addl. CMM, Mayo Hall at Bangalore in CC No.23205/2009 and pass such any other relief/s as deems fit in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that further investigation was ordered by the learned Magistrate based on the complainant’s application. Consequently, further investigation was conducted and additional charges have been framed. Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings, present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel –vs- Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 177 (paras-49 and 50). It was submitted that for further investigation, an application should have been filed by the Investigating Agency at the behest of the complainant. Learned Magistrate cannot entertain the application for further investigation as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. Consequently, framing of additional charges (Annexure-A) is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of further investigation is dated 6.9.2013. The consequential proceedings like ordering further investigation is not challenged. In the absence of challenge to the order dated 6.9.2013 by which the complainant’s application was allowed for further investigation, this petition does not arise for consideration. It was also contended that in Crl.P No.8321/2014 (Annexure-C) decided on 17.7.2015, wherein the order dated 5.2.2014 passed in CC No.23205/2009 on the file of the X Addl. CMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru (Annexure-D) this Court had taken note of earlier litigation in paras-3 and 4. In para-3, it was recorded that additional charge was not quashed and consequently the impugned order therein dated 9.3.2018 cannot be sustained.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Crux of the present petition is that petitioners have not assailed the order dated 6.9.2013 by which learned Magistrate accepted the complainant’s application for further investigation. Framing of additional charges is questioned pursuant to order dated 6.9.2013 relating to further investigation. As long as the order dated 6.9.2013 is not set aside, petitioner is not entitled for the relief of quashing the framing of additional charges (Annexure-A). Accordingly, petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to question the validity of the order dated 6.9.2013 in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm