Karnataka High Court
Sri D A Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5856 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D.A.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE D.K.AUDIKESAVULU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
VAIDEHI COLLEGE
R/AT NO. 7/21,
1ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
RMV EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
2. SRI.A.DAMODAR
S/O LATE GANGULAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 21, 4TH CROSS,
12TH 'A' MAIN, UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
Digitally signed
3. SMT. KALPAJA
by PADMAVATHI
BK
W/O PREMCHANDRA RAJAN
Location: High AGED ABOUT YEARS
Court of
Karnataka R /AT 118, FOAM HOUSE
HOSKOTE-KADGODI ROAD,
SEEGEHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 067.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAL POLICE
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. MANJULA
W/O LATE K.RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O NO. 5034, 5-B ROAD
EPIP ZONE
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT APARTMENT
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU - 560 048.
3. ROHITH K.R.,
S/O LATE K.RAGHUNATH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O NO.5034, 5-B ROAD,
EPIP ZONE
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT APARTMENT
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 21.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 29TH ACMM, MAYO
HALL, BENGALURU IN PCR NO.51691/2020 (CR.NO.89/2020)
FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY 1st RESPONDENT H.A.L
POLICE STATION BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
HEREIN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners call in question an order dated
21.02.2022, passed by the 29th ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in
PCR.No.51691/2020, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 421, 464, 467, 468, 471, 474,
r/w. 34 of the IPC, whereby, directing re-investigation into the
matter at the hands of a different authority than who had
investigated the matter, pursuant to a direction by this Court
for constitution of a Special Investigation Bureau for such
investigation.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh S., learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
3. Petitioners are accused and what is challenged is a
direction issued by the learned Magistrate for further
investigation by rejection of 'B' report. The issue in the case at
hand is further investigation. The petitioners accused have no
role to play or right to claim that they should be heard in the
matter. The law in this regard is too well settled by plethora of
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
judgments rendered by the Apex Court and followed by this
Court in Crl.P.No.1675/2021 date 25.05.2022, wherein this
Court considering the very submissions has held as follows:
"21. The companion criminal petition is filed
by the husband for quashing the charge sheet filed
against him for offence punishable under Section
498A of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the
allegations made do not constitute an offence for
invoking the said provision, as none of the
ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC is present in
the complaint or in the charge sheet filed by the
Police. Since the criminal petition is tagged to the
writ petition seeking further investigation, the
learned counsel submits that the accused also must
have a say if further investigation is directed to be
ordered. This plea of the learned counsel that the
accused has to be heard while further investigation
is to be directed is unacceptable, in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
SATISHKUMAR NYALCHAND SHAH v. STATE OF
GUJARAT AND OTHERS1 wherein the Apex Court
holds as follows:
"7. Having heard learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective parties and
Crl.Appeal No.353 of 2020 decided 2-03-2020
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
the private respondent herein, we are of the
opinion that as such no error has been committed
by the High Court dismissing the application
submitted by the appellant herein to implead him
in the Special Criminal Application filed by the
private respondent herein challenging the order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
rejecting his application for further investigation
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. with respect to one
another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against
whom no charge sheet has been filed till date.
Therefore, it is not at all appreciable how the
appellant against whom no relief is sought for
further investigation has any locus and/or any
say in the application for further investigation
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. How he can be said
to be a necessary and a proper party. It is
required to be noted that, as such, even the
proposed accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have
any say at this stage in an application under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation, as
observed by this Court in the case of W.N.
Chadha (supra); Narender G.Goel (supra) and
Dinubhai Bhabhai Solanki (supra). In the case
of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra) after
considering one another decision of this Court in
the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of
A.P.- (1999) 5 SCC 740, it is observed and held
that there is nothing in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to
suggest that the court is obliged to hear the
accused before any direction for further
investigation is made. In Sri Bhagwan
Samardha (supra), this Court in paragraph 11
held as under:
"11. In such a situation the power
of the Court to direct the police to conduct
further investigation cannot have any
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
inhibition. There is nothing in Section
173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged
to hear the accused before any such
direction is made. Casting of any such
obligation on the court would only result
in encumbering the court with the burden
of searching for all the potential accused
to be afforded with the opportunity of
being heard. As the law does not
require it, we would not burden the
Magistrate with such an obligation."
Therefore, when the proposed accused
against whom the further investigation is sought,
namely Shri Bhaumik is required to be heard at
this stage, there is no question of hearing the
appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the
charge sheet is already filed and the trial against
whom is in progress and no relief of further
investigation is sought against him. Therefore, the
High Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the
application submitted by the appellant to implead
him as a party respondent in the Special Criminal
Application."
The Apex Court holds that the accused is not
a necessary or a proper party in a petition seeking
further investigation or reinvestigation, the question
of hearing the accused would not arise. The said
finding would be applicable in all its fours against
the contention of the learned counsel for the
husband in the companion criminal petition
No.1675/2021."
CRL.P No. 5856 of 2022
In the light of the afore-extracted order, the petition lacks
merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NVJ
