IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.890 of 2017 BETWEEN S. RAJESH REDDY, S/O SURYAPRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVAPARAVATHI NAGAR, HOSAHALLI ROAD, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL – 583 231.
(BY SRI C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY KALASA POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, IN S.C.No.63/2015 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D) OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (IN CRIME No.9/2015 OF KALASA POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU) BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in SC No.63/2015 on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by order dated 20.06.2007.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2015, the PSI, Kalasa Police Station, while he was on patrolling duty, at about 11.00 a.m., he had received a credible information that a person, in a red color car near a shop of Manjinakatte, is trying to circulate fake currency notes. After receipt of the said information, he has secured two panchas CWs.2 and 3 and proceeded to the spot and after observing the said person, he apprehended him and seized 28 notes of Rs.500/- denomination and 18 notes of Rs.100/- denomination under panchanama between 11.15 and 11.45 a.m. and after arresting the accused, came back to the Police station and filed a report to the SHO. Based upon the report, a case against this petitioner/accused came to be registered in Crime No.9/2015 for the offence under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC. After the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and after appearance of the accused/petitioner before the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed an application for discharge of the alleged offence, which came to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the complainant-PSI on receipt of credible information regarding cognizable offence, which is punishable under Sections 489B & 489C, he has not recorded the reasons or information in writing either in the General Diary or separately prior to proceeding to the spot for arresting the accused and seizing the currency notes, which is a grave violation of the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. He also contended that it is not fake currency note, it is only xerox copy of the original note. Therefore, there is no case made out by the prosecution to frame charges against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition and to discharge the petitioner of the charges leveled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that in an identical case, this Court has quashed the charges against the accused persons and has also produced a copy of the said judgment passed by this Court.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that it is not a case where the petitioner has filed application for quashing of FIR or charge sheet, but it is for discharging the petitioner before the Trial Court. Therefore, the power of this Court is limited. Apart from that, it is also contended that the petitioner has not raised any contention regarding registering of a case prior to registering the FIR and arresting the petitioner. Therefore, he cannot raise this ground for the first time before the Court. If at all the petitioner is a having good case on merits, he can appear before the Trial Court and putforth his contention during trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides and before going to the facts of the case, it is relevant to refer to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), at paragraphs 120.1 to 120.6, which are as under:
“120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.”
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also issued direction to the SHO to enter the information in the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Dairy to record all the information received in a Police Station in relation to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an enquiry must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary enquiry must also be reflected.
8. On the background of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and coming to the facts of the case of the prosecution on record, it reveals that the complaint or the information filed by CW-1, PSI-Santhosh Shetty in his report filed before the SHO at 12.45 p.m. along with the accused, he has produced alleged fake currency notes as well as the panchanama prepared by him between 11.15 and 11.45 a.m. In the beginning of the report itself, he has clearly mentioned in both the panchanama as well as in the FIR that he had received a credible information regarding circulating of the counterfeit currency notes by unknown person in a red colour car. Later, he has proceeded along with two panchas, seized the alleged currency notes and apprehended the accused on the spot by preparing panchanama, which goes to show that prior to registering the case, the PSI has proceeded to the spot and seized the material under panchas. Further, the said contention has not been taken by the petitioner before the Trial Court while making grounds for discharging in the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The order of the Trial Court also does not reveal the same, which shows that the police proceeded to the spot, seized the counterfeit currency notes under the panchanama, but there is no finding in respect of seizing of the currency notes and receipt of the first information in respect of the cognizable offence is required to be considered by the Trial Court based on the guidelines of Apex Court. Therefore, without expressing any information on the merits of the case and on background of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I hold that the order under revision requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the same including the ground urged by the petitioner before this Court in respect of registering the FIR subsequent to seizing of the alleged counterfeit currency notes under the panchanama on the background of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
The order dated 20.06.2007 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back. The application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is restored on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for fresh consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE mv