IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2954 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI KAVALAPPA S/O LATE NARAPPA DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHITRADURGA-577558. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI D PEERYA NAIK S/O DAKYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O #109, SRINIVASA NILAYA B BLOCK, 4TH CROSS GOOPALA GOWDA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA-577412.
2. SRI ROY CHANGAPPA S/O K C POOVAIAH COFFEE PLANTER R/O CHETTALLY, SOMAVARA PETE TQ., COORG DIST 571 248 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE FOR R1-ABSENT; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3320/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. C.J. AND JMFC., SHIMOGA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent. Respondent No.2 is duly served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner was the Circle Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga at the relevant time. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Krishana, S/o. Veerathimappa, a case was registered by the petitioner herein against second respondent(hereinafter referred as the complainant) in Cr.No.353/2005 for the offence punishable under section 364(A) r/w 34 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, said proceedings ended in ‘B’ summary report. On acceptance of the summary report, 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C. seeking action against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under section 499 Indian Penal Code.
3. Material allegations made in the complaint finds place at paras 7 and 8, which reads as under:-.
7. It is submitted that the entire investigation records of Cr.No.353/2005 never revealed any over tact, role or participation of complainant in the alleged crime of kidnapping of Veeresh on 14/07/2005 as per complaint lodged by his brother Krishna. The complainant unnecessary called by the 1st accused to the police station and apprehended on 28/07/2005 and produced before magistrate and the complainant was remanded to judicial custody and the complainant was in judicial custody for more than 20 days at the cost of 1st accused. The witnesses named in the complaint have witnessed the torture and humiliation caused by the 1st accused upon the complainant in falsely implicating the complainant in Cr.No.353/2005.
8. It is submitted that after the complaint, the 1st accused apprehended the complainant in Cr.No.353/05 for with out any reason or cause and suffered in judicial custody for 20 days and the same was published in daily news papers published and circulates through out in Karnataka particularly that is in Prajavani and Samyukatha Karnataka the publication of same has defamed the reputation of complainant who was a Rtd Assistant sub inspector discharged his service till voluntary Retirement with out any remarks during his tenure of his office. Even the 2nd accused after his apprehension has named this complainant as accused to 1st accused for the purpose of false implication of the complainant.
4. A plain reading of the above averments indicate that the alleged acts were committed by the petitioner while in discharge of his official duty as investigating officer in Cr.No.353/2005. Under the said circumstances, even if the petitioner has exceeded his jurisdiction, said acts having been committed while in discharge of his official duty, learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offence without prior sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, solely on this ground, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Even on merits, I find that the allegations made in the complaint do not even remotely attract the ingredient of Section 499 Indian Penal Code. The acts complained against the petitioner fall within the legitimate jurisdiction of the petitioner investigating the offences under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Though it is alleged that after registration of the case, details of judicial custody of the complainant was published in Kannada newspaper by name ‘Prajavani’, there is no material to show that the said publication was made either by the petitioner or at the instance of the petitioner. In the absence of any such averments or material in support of the accusations, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence under section 499 Indian Penal Code is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. As a result, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.3320/2012 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-