IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5819 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
ANISHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER MR. AJAY KUMAR, FLAT NO.1013, SHOBA TULIP APARTMENTS, 24TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI B.NAIK , SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI G.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J P NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560001 2. MR. CHANDRAJOY BANERJEE S/O MR. SUDHINDRA KUMAR BANERJEE AGED 46 YEARS R/AT M-104, H.M. TAMBOURINE 28, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE BENGALURU - 560078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; SRI JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY, B, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN CR.NO.312/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner, a minor represented by his father has sought to quash the proceedings initiated in Cr.No.312/2016, pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant.
3. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 29.06.2016 before Jayaprakashnagar police station. In the said complaint, he alleged that his son aged about 14 years was studying in Baldwin Boys School and in the evening at about 4:25 p.m. on 29.06.2016, the complainant was asked to come to Dayanandsagar hospital. When he rushed to the hospital, he was informed that his son had fallen down from the tenth floor of their apartment and that he was declared brought dead to the hospital.
4. Based on this information, Cr.No.312/2016 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, against unknown persons. During investigation, a death note was found in the school bag of the deceased and the driver of the school van gave a statement before the police that on the date of the incident, he saw the deceased and the petitioner herein quarreling with each other. On the basis of the said statement, the petitioner was implicated in the above offence and he was picked up for interrogation and on the same day enlarged on bail.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in the alleged offence solely on the basis of the statement of the driver of the van without there being any prima facie material to show his involvement in the death of the deceased. The statement of the van driver does not make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that on account of implication of a minor, school going child i.e., the petitioner as well as his parents are driven to undergo unbearable anxiety and trauma. Thus, he pleads for quashing the proceedings. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. and another – 1995 supp (3) SCC 438 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2002 decided on 01.05.2002.
6. Disputing the above submission, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that the matter is under investigation. Hence, solely on the basis of the contentions urged by the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records produced by the petitioner and the grounds urged in the petition.
8. Though, the FIR is registered against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the real cause of death is yet to be determined. It is not known as to how the investigating agency could presume that the deceased committed suicide, when the circumstances narrated in the FIR do not rule out the possibility of accidental or homicidal death. The complainant has nowhere stated in the complaint that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, it is necessary for the investigating agency to investigate the matter from all angles and determine the real cause of death of the deceased. At this stage, it is premature to come to a conclusion that the deceased committed suicide.
9. The statement of the van driver indicates that on the date of the incident there was quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner immediately preceding his death. Therefore, the investigating agency necessarily has to investigate into the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged incident. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis for implication of the petitioner in the death of the deceased cannot be accepted.
10. It is trite law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised to stifle legitimate investigation. When the investigation is at the nascent stage, this court cannot circumscribe the scope of investigation. Therefore, at this stage, it is not advisable for this court to curtail the scope of investigation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint, in my view the investigating agency is required to investigate as to whether the deceased committed suicide or that he met with a homicidal death.
11. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be applied to the instant case. In the said case, charge sheet was laid against the accused therein on the specific accusation that the deceased committed suicide. In the said circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that the material collected by the investigating agency did not make out the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In the instant case, the facts are hazy and incomplete. Therefore, it is not proper to scuttle the investigation on the basis of the contentions urged in the petition. As a result, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the FIR and consequent investigation.
12. At this juncture, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prosecution having proceeded on the basis that the deceased committed suicide, any observations made by this Court to the effect that the deceased has been murdered and that the matter is required to be investigated from that angle is likely to expand the scope of investigation and the same is likely to prejudice the petitioner. I do not find any merit in this submission.
13. As already stated above, the case is registered under Section 306 of IPC. Circumstances narrated in the complaint do not rule out the possibility of murder and therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the FIR and investigation undertaken by the respondents.
14. However, it is made clear that in the process of investigation, petitioner shall not be subjected to any unnecessary harassment or humiliation.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ