Karnataka High Court
Sri Rayan vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2021
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Crl.P.4315/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4315 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAYAN
S/O SADIQ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT. 1ST CROSS,
KAYIPETEV GUBBI,
TOWN TUMKUR,
KARNATAKA.
2. SRI SUHEL @ BASHIR
S/O BASHIR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT: 1ST CROSS, JYOTHI NAGAR,
INFRONT OF RAILWAY STATION,
GUBBI TOWN TUMKUR,
KARNATAKA. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR.
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Crl.P.4315/2021
2
2. NAVEEN. H.S.
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
THILAK PARK CIRCLE,
JAYNAGARA POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.540/2021 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C.,
TUMAKURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.4 and 5 in
C.C.No.540/2021 which is now pending before the court
of IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and 5th JMFC.,
Tumkur, arising out of Crime No.99/2019 registered by
Jayanagar Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences
punishable under Sections 37 and 511 of IPC and
Sections 3, 7, 25(1B)(a) and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959,
Crl.P.4315/2021
have approached this court with a prayer to quash the
entire proceedings in the said case.
3. The brief facts of the case that would be relevant
for the purpose of disposal of this petition are:
On 06.09.2019 at about 5.30 a.m., a Maruti Omni
Car bearing registration No.KA-06/M-7214 in which the
petitioners along with the other accused persons were
traveling was intercepted by the Police and in the said
vehicle, they found Air guns and also bloodstained
feathers of birds. The inmates of the vehicle failed to give
any explanation with regard to the guns, which were
found in the vehicle. The guns and the vehicle were
seized under mahazar and on the report of one Naveen
H.S., Police Officer attached to Jayanagar Police Station,
Tumakuru, FIR was registered in Crime No.99/2019 for
the offences alleged in the FIR. Subsequently,
investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed
and the trial court has taken cognizance of the charge
Crl.P.4315/2021
sheet alleged offences and issued summons to the
petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.
The guns in question which were seized do not belong to
the petitioners. He also submits that the informant in the
case is the person who has carried on the investigation
and therefore, investigation is bad in law. He also
submits that the informant himself has recorded the
statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
which is not permissible in law. He submits that there
are no material to show that guns belong to the
petitioners and therefore, continuation of the criminal
proceedings against them is bad in law.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition
would submit that there is no bar for the informant to
investigate the case. She also submits that at the request
Crl.P.4315/2021
of the Investigating Officer, any other Police Officer can
record the statement of the witnesses under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. She submits that the investigation has been
done fairly and charge sheet has now been filed against
the petitioners. The veracity of the charge sheet material
which makes out a prima facie case against the
petitioners cannot be tested in a proceedings under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, she prays to dismiss
the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the rival arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the material
available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were the
inmates of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06/M-
7214, which was intercepted by the Police on 06.09.2019.
The Police have found two Air guns in the vehicle and the
inmates of the vehicle have failed to give any satisfactory
Crl.P.4315/2021
explanation with regard to the ownership of the said
guns. From the charge sheet material, it is seen that the
said guns are foreign-made guns. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation
is bad in law for the reason that the informant himself
has conducted the investigation does not merit
consideration, having regard to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh -vs- State
(Narcotic Branch of Delhi)1 wherein the earlier
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohan Lal -vs- State of Punjab2 has been over-ruled. As
rightly contended by the learned HCGP, at the
instructions of the Investigating Officer, any other Police
Officer can record the statement of the witnesses under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The veracity of such statements
cannot be tested in a proceedings under Section 482 of
SLP(Crl.) Diary No.39528/2018 DD 31.08.2020
AIR 2018 SC 3853
Crl.P.4315/2021
Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the petitioners herein were
the inmates of the vehicle in which two guns were found
for which the inmates have failed to give any explanation
with regard to the ownership.
8. Under the circumstances, I do not find any
reason to entertain the petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A. does
not survive for consideration. Hence, it stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
