IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.76/2016 C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1511/2016 IN CRL.P.NO.76/2016 BETWEEN:
SMT. YALLAMMA W/O. P. SHIVAKUMAR D/O. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT #3940 CHANNKESHWARA NILAYA AGB LAYOUT HESSARGATTA MAIN ROAD CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU-560 079.
(BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET P.S.
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
2. N. NARAYANAPPA S/O. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ... PETITIONER RESIDING AT GULAHALLI VILLAGE GULLAHALLI POST BUDIKOTE HOBLI BANGERPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; SRI G. MANIVANNAN, ADV. FOR R2 [ABSENT]) IN CRL.P.NO.1511/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANANTHAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SRI VENKATESH S/O. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUNUKUNDA VILLAGE AND POST ROBERTSONPET HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 122.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET P.S.
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
2. N. NARAYANAPPA S/O. NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT GULAHALLI VILLAGE GULLAHALLI POST BUDIKOTE HOBLI BANGERPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; SRI G. MANIVANNAN, ADV. FOR R2 [ABSENT]) CRL.P.NO.76/2016 IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.248/2015 IN PCR NO.165/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC COURT, BANGARPET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE.
CRL.P.NO.1511/2016 IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.248/2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC COURT, BANGARPET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), the petitioners have sought to quash the registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.248/2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
3. The main ground on which the petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings is that, by the impugned order dated 29.01.2016, the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint for investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, K.G.F. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. contrary to Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
4. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in AIR 2001 SC 668 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the question as to whether a Magistrate can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation in exercise of the powers available under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, and after considering the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in the light of the various authorities on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said sub-section beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation.
5. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2075.
6. Learned SPP-II for respondent No.1-State does not dispute the position of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision and also fairly concedes that the requirements of Priyanka Srivastava’s case has not been complied with in the instant case.
7. For the above reasons, the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Bangarpet referring the matter for investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police and consequent registration of F.I.R. in Crime No. 248/2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the law laid down in the above decisions.
The petitions stand allowed accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE ST