IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6244 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI.N.RAMESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIPTUR RURAL POLICE STATION, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
..PETITIONER (BY SRI.JANARDHANA, ADV. FOR SRI.PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
SRI.B.M.RANANNA S/O MUNISWAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.69, 7TH CR5OSS, SHIVANANDA NAGARA, MUDALAPAYA, BANGALORE – 72.
..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.H.BHAGAWAN, ADV.) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. PARYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN PHR NO.1/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short).
2. Petitioner is the Circle Inspector of Police, Tiptur Circle. According to the petitioner, a case was registered in Kibbanahalli police station limits in Crime No.64/2013. He took over investigation in the said Crime No.64/2013. Respondent No.1 appeared before him on 14.10.2015 armed with anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he released the respondent on bail and thereafter, continued with the investigation and laid a report against respondent No.1 and other accused.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent, who is involved in an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, has foisted a false complaint against him and just to get sympathy of the Court, he has created false medical records in collusion with his advocate on record. The learned Special Judge without application of mind, only on the basis of created medical records, has referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, the petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him in PHR No.1/2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.
4. Refuting the contention, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner, prima facie, make out the offences punishable under Sections 342, 348, 324, 326 and 506 IPC. Along with the complaint, reliable documents were produced which clearly disclose the ingredients of the above offences, based on which the learned Special Judge has referred the matter for investigation. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.
5. I have considered the submissions and have perused the complaint, as well as the grounds urged in the petition.
6. In the complaint, specific allegations are made against the petitioner that the respondent viz., the complainant had obtained anticipatory bail from the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Crl. Misc. No.10126/2015. When he offered surety and sought his release, he was asked to appear before the petitioner on 16.10.2016. Accordingly, when he appeared before the petitioner, he was subjected to custodial torture repeatedly by the petitioner. He was tied with a rope and was assaulted with belt and was caned black and blue causing fracture of his left shoulder, so much so he was unable to stand and had to take treatment as an inpatient at Bowring hospital from 19.10.2015 and thereafter, he was admitted in Saptagiri hospital, Chikkasandra.
7. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, which are sought to be substantiated through the medical records and the sworn statement of the respondent, it cannot be said that the criminal law has been set in motion by the complainant as a counter blast to the case filed against him in Crime No.64/2013. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner that the order of reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is passed mechanically without application of mind is concerned, suffice it to note that the impugned order reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has perused the complaint and having regard to the nature of allegations, found it necessary to get the matter investigated by the jurisdictional police. In my considered view, no exception can be taken to the impugned order calling for interference by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.