IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3111 /2015 BETWEEN:
Smt.Vartika Katiyar I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Kodagu District.
(By Sri.Siddarth B.Muchandi, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.123/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri against the petitioner herein for the offence P/U/S 179, 187 and 188 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings against her in Crl.Misc.No.123/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 179, 187 and 188 of IPC.
2. Petitioner was working as Superintendent of Police at Kodagu District at the relevant time. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri dealing with Spl. Case (Atro) No.1/2009 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as under:
“Whereas in the above case, this Court had issued direction to Dy.S.P.Madikeri Sub Division through you to furnish the property particulars of accused Sadananda S/o Velappan, 33 yrs, Near Basappa Colony, Mayamudi Village & Post, Virajpet Taluk. But you have not furnished the property particulars.
Therefore, you are hereby directed to show cause as to why property particulars of accused not furnished and report not submitted thereof to this Court, on or before 01.04.2015”.
3. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice and did not furnish particulars called for by the Court. As a result, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:
“This Court is of the opinion and satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that respondent should be tried summarily for refusal give answer/explanation to the show cause notice. Hence this Court has taken cognizance for the offences p/u/sec. 179, 187 and 188 of IPC against the respondent as per provision u/sec.190(1)(c) of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to issue show cause notice to the respondent through IGP., Mysuru Sub-Division, as to why she should not be punished for the offences p/u/sec. 179, 187 and 188 of IPC, returnable by 19/5/2015.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the report dated 31.03.2015 submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gonikoppal Police Station and would submit that the requisite information as sought for in the show cause notice was furnished to the Court and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in directing prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences.
5. Learned Additional SSP appearing for the respondent however, pointed out that the report dated 31.03.2015 was not submitted by the petitioner herein in compliance of the show cause notice. On the other hand, the contents of the said report indicate that the Sub Inspector of Police conducted enquiry and submitted the report to the Court, the same cannot be construed as compliance of show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner herein failed to comply with the show cause notice issued by the Court and did not even bother to appear before the Court to offer explanation for non compliance of the direction issued by the Court. In the said circumstances, the Presiding Officer was justified in initiating action against the petitioner. However, as the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is prepared to appear before the Court and offer her explanation and explain the circumstances which have given rise to the impugned order, petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court and offer explanation for non compliance of the show cause notice and in such event any remorse expressed by the petitioner may be considered sympathetically by the trial Court.
With this observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE UN