IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2054/2013 BETWEEN MR. MEER SHARIFF ALI DSP, ISD, KSRP 1ST BATTALION RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE 560 025 R/O NO.41, 1ST B CROSS KHB - MIG COLONY 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 95 (BY SMT MAMATHA ROY, ADVOCATE) AND MR. B.N. SHIVANNA NO.5.1/1, SHUJATHA COMPLEX 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE 560 009 (BY SRI PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.42390/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though this matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, the petition is heard for final disposal.
2. The petitioner, a Police Officer prays for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.42390/2010 pending on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein filed a private complaint in PCR No.3977/2004 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that he was detained by the Police Officers who are named as accused Nos.1 to 10, at Upparpet Police Station. It is stated in the complaint that the accused-Police Officers used filthy language, slapped the accused, tied his hands with ropes and tortured him in custody. It is further alleged that the respondent-complainant’s signature was taken on blank paper, forcibly demanded money to favour the accused. The respondent-complainant was not provided with food or water in order to extract money by the accused. The private complaint was presented on 05.03.2004 and the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 26.07.2010 and further statement was recorded on 02.09.2010.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the private complaint at Annexure ‘B’ would indicate that the petitioner as accused No.10 was impleaded as an afterthought, since the name of the petitioner is written by hand and placed as accused No.10. The learned Counsel further submits that neither in the body of the complaint nor in the sworn statement, the complainant has stated anything specifically with respect to the petitioner. Most importantly, it is submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a Station House Officer at Jeevanbhimanagar Police Station at the relevant point of time. It is therefore submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance as against the petitioner herein.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the final report was filed by the petitioner and he was also involved in the crime against the respondent as the petitioner was investigating into the matter.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers.
7. A close reading of the complaint lodged by the respondent shows that in the body of the complaint, respondent-complainant has named accused Nos.1 to 9. In paragraph-8 the complainant has specifically stated that when the complainant was in the police custody between 22.02.2002 to 04.03.2002, the accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 have managed to create the document and forcibly took the signature and writing on various blank summons and cheques and fare stamp papers from the complainant. In paragraph-9, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 9 have extracted confession from the complainant. In the body of the complaint, respondent has named each and every Police Officer. However, it is noticeable that the name of the petitioner is not found even once in the body of the complaint. Further, in the sworn statement, the respondent-complainant has reiterated whatever has been stated in the body of the written complaint. However, in the last page of the sworn statement, the respondent-complainant has stated that on 4th March 2002, the respondent- complainant was produced before the Court. After four months, the petitioner-accused No.10 summoned the respondent-complainant to the Police Station. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe, since the petitioner had the authority to submit the final report.
8. The learned Magistrate while taking cognizance against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 167, 193, 194, 120(B), 330 and 331 read with Section 149 of IPC, has simply stated that the complainant, in the sworn statement has reiterated the complaint averments.
9. From the above, it is clear that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind while taking cognizance as regards the petitioner. When it is the case of the complainant-respondent that the offences alleged happened during his custody at Upparpet Police Station, and there being no whisper in the entire complaint or in the sworn statement as regards the petitioner who was the Station House Officer at Jeevanbhimanagar Police Station at the relevant point of time, then it is clear that the complainant-respondent had not made out any case as against the petitioner who was the Station House Officer at Jeevenbhimanagar Police Station at the relevant point of time. Not even a single sentence is stated either in the complaint or in the sworn statement as to how the petitioner who was the Station House Officer at Jeevenbhimanagar and only submitted the final report after investigation, was involved in the crime said to have been perpetrated against the complainant- respondent when he was in custody in Upparpet Police Station.
10. On facts it is clear that the complainant- respondent had not made out any case as against the petitioner herein and the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed against the respondent- complainant by the petitioner.
11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is required to be allowed and accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the cognizance taken by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.42390/2018 as against the petitioner and all further proceedings in C.C.No.42390/2010 as against the petitioner stands quashed.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-