IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1352/2018 BETWEEN MONAJ RAI S/O. BINOD RAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. NO.38, GOPI SCHOOL ROAD 8TH MAIN, MEENAKSHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU PERMANENT ADDRESS NO.156 RAMACHANDRAPUR, SHODPUR POST KHADDA TANA, CALCUTTA WESTBENGAL STATE.
(BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR SAMANT, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001 (BY SRI THEJESH .P, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED BY THE XLIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55759/2016 AND DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED AND ALLOW THIS CRL.R.P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is heard and taken up for final disposal.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the court below in C.C.No.55759/2016 dated 05.09.2018, whereby, application filed by accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking his discharge from the offence punishable under Section 354(D) of IPC, 1860 came to be dismissed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent – State and perused the records.
4. It is stated in the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., by the accused in C.C.No.55759/2016 that the police had laid the charge sheet against him without there being any incriminating materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, which prima facie makes out a case against him for having committed the alleged offence.
5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the facts of the case and contends that the victim is one of the reporter of the “Bangalore Mirror” newspaper and she was waiting for fresh news at commercial street police station on 26.12.2015 with her companion and they pressurized the police to register the case against the accused without any offence committed by the accused. A second defence which addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police initially arrested the accused on 26.12.2015 and released him and further after 05 days again called him from his work place and arrested him and produced before the competent court of law having jurisdiction to dealt with the matter, even though there is no material to prove the allegations made against the accused and the allegations made against him are groundless. Hence, the accused has filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking his discharge. He further contends that the court below in C.C.No.55759/2016 has not considered the materials in proper perspective and there is miscarriage of justice by the trial Court since mere filing of charge sheet against the accused itself cannot be said that there is enough materials collected by the Investigating officer against the accused to frame charges against the accused and accused is required to face trial. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking interference of this Court to the impugned order passed by the Court below by allowing this petition and setting aside the impugned order.
6. Learned HCGP for the respondent-State counter to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after investigation by the Investigating Officer into the matter, charge sheet is laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354(D) of IPC. Subsequent to dismissal of the discharge application, the aforesaid case is set down for framing of charges. The trial Court in right perspective has gone through the materials secured by the Investigating Officer and found that there is prima facie material for framing of charges against the petitioner/accused and proceeded with the matter. There is a settled principles of law in respect of these aspects that while considering the application for discharge, the court should not gone into the merits and demerits of the case. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Amit Kappor Vs. Rameshchander and another – (2012) 9 SCC 460, it has held therein that even the materials available on record are sufficient to frame charge against the accused, if there is a doubt with regard to the complicity of a crime, the same should dealt with during the course of full fledged trial. Hence, learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the petition filed by the accused as there is no merit in the petition.
7. I have considered the rival submissions of both the petitioner as well as Respondent / State.
8. It is not in dispute that on filing of the complaint by complainant a case came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354(D) of IPC, 1860, on the allegation that victim is one of the reporter of the ‘Bengaluru Mirror’ news paper and she was waiting for the fresh news at Commercial Street police station on 26.12.2015 with her companion and at that time, the accused has took some photograph of the victim from his mobile and after looking the flash light of the mobile the victim has screamed and called the police. Thereafter, the police have registered the case against the accused and it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and the complainant being the news reporter, with an ulterior intention has pressurized the police to register the case against the accused without any offence committed by the accused. This is one of the ground urged by the counsel for the accused before the trial Court in an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. But the prosecution has placed materials by filing objections to the said application and produced the charge sheet laid by Investigating Officer and according to the prosecution, the materials available on record discloses existence of prima facie case against accused. As per Section 173 of Cr.P.C., after completion of investigation, the investigating officer has to submit the charge sheet within the stipulated period and without any delay after examining the witnesses. In this case, Investigating officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and also secure material evidence in order to file the charge sheet against the accused, the same is find place in the records.
9. It is the settled principles of law that in respect of considering the application filed by the accused seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the court has to consider whether the charge sheet materials are sufficient to frame charge against the accused and it should not gone into the merits and demerits of the case as it is held in the judgment of Amit Kappor’s case referred supra. When the sufficient material has been find place in the charge sheet laid by the investigating officer, it is enough for framing charges against the accused and then he is required to face trial. But in the instant case, considering the nature of allegations, the accused is required to face trial and also witnesses cited in the charge sheet has to be tested on behalf of prosecution and shall subjected for cross- examination by defence. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there are enough materials collected by the Investigating Officer to file charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 354(D) of IPC and it is sufficient for framing charges against him. Keeping in view the settled principles of law and also as held in the aforesaid judgment, the material collected by the investigating officer to laid the charge sheet is enough to proceed against the accused for framing of charges against the accused and he is required to face trial.
10. Therefore, in terms of the above reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER This criminal revision petition is rejected, consequently the impugned order passed in C.C.No.55759/2016 is hereby confirmed.
Whatever observation made by this Court shall not influence the mind of the trial Court, the same shall be disposed off on merits.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ