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.7625/2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. RANJUTHA @ RANJITHA MENON D/O SRI. P. ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.31/10 NO.5F PEARL PRANAV APARTMENT HABIBULLA ROAD CHENNAI-600 007 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. D. HEMANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. K. LENIN C/O KUMAR AINTIRAM DEVELOPERS BG-3, GOKUL APARTMENT NEW NO.250, R.K. MUTT ROAD R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-600 025 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIDADI POLICE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. SANDESH. J. CHOUTA, AAG FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN APPLICATION U/S.301(2) OF CRPC IN S.C.NO.86/2014 PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.3 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND PERMIT HER TO ASSIST THE PROSECUTION AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.11.2018, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THIS COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has presented this petition challenging Order dated 14.9.2018 passed by III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in S.C.No.86/2014, dismissing her application filed under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C, to assist the prosecution.
2. Heard Smt Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioner filed an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C, contending inter alia:
that one Lenin had filed a police complaint in Chennai against one Paramahamsa Nithyananda Swamy and others, which was transferred to Bidadi in Ramanagara District and FIR No.141/2010 was registered on 18.3.2010 in Bidadi Police Station against certain persons for offences punishable under Sections 295(A), 376, 377, 420, 506(1) r/w. Section 120 (B) of IPC;
that along with the complaint, a compact disc (CD) was also enclosed and the same has been seized by the police. The said CD contains morphed images and gives an impression that the petitioner is the victim. The police, based on petitioner’s statement ought to have initiated action against the complainant for having filed the complaint with false allegations;
that in connection with the telecast of CD containing morphed images, Chennai police registered a case against Lenin, Aarthi Rao and executives of SUN Television and took up the investigation;
that in view of the morphed images contained in the said CD, petitioner’s marital life has been adversely affected; and that the petitioner having been projected as victim must be permitted to assist the prosecution to vindicate her stand.
4. The learned Trial Judge has rejected petitioner’s application holding that the law does not permit a person, who intended to deny prosecution case to seek permission to assist the prosecution. Hence, this petition.
5. Smt Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner is a respectable lady and her honour and reputation has been adversely affected by telecasting the said CD. She submitted that since petitioner is shown as the victim in the CD, she must be permitted to assist the prosecution to vindicate her stand.
6. Shri Chouta’s main argument is that, petitioner is not the victim and therefore not an aggrieved person. She is not even a prosecution witness. In her statement before the Police, she has stated that she is not the victim shown in the CD. Therefore, to protect her honour, petitioner may initiate separate proceedings.
7. Adverting to paragraph No.23 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Siva Vallabhaneni vs. State of Karnataka and Another1, Shri Chouta pointed out that the Supreme Court of India has also not permitted 1 2015(2) SCC 90 the petitioner to come on record. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused the records.
9. Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
“(2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the Prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.”
10. In substance, it is petitioner’s case that though she is not the real victim, she has been falsely depicted as a victim. Section 301 is intended to assist a public prosecutor, who conducts the trial of criminal cases. The stand taken by the petitioner is adverse to prosecution theory.
11. Learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application has recorded thus:
“22. From the contention taken by the applicant, it is crystal clear that her stand is contrary to the case of the prosecution. According to her, very filing of charge- sheet is bad as the same is based upon false allegations made. Thus it is clear that the applicant is not at all interested in assisting the prosecution. However, she is justified in contending that her dignity and honour should be protected and her identity should not be disclosed at the time of trial. That apprehension is already taken care of.
23. The Law does not permit a person who intended to deny the case of the prosecution to seek the permission of the court to assist the prosecution. Hence, it can be safely held that the applicant cannot be permitted to assist the prosecution. Therefore, on the collective study of contention taken by the applicant and the ratio of the decisions referred to above, this court is of the opinion that application filed by the applicant u/s 301(2) of Cr.P.C deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, point No.1 which has arisen for the due consideration of this court is answered in the Negative.”
12. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing petitioner’s application.
13. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
cp* Sd/- JUDGE