Karnataka High Court
Hanumanth Ramappa Kuri vs The Dy. Superintendent Of Police on 11 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRL. P. NO. 6545/2020 C/W
CRL. P. NO. 3442/2021
IN CRL.P.No.6545/2020
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMANTH RAMAPPA KURI S/O SRI RAMAPPA KURI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT ROOP POTO STUDIO,
HARUGERI, TALUK RAYABAG, DISTRICT BELGAUM-591 220.
2. SHIVANAND @ SHIVAPPA RAMAPPA DALWAI,
S/O SRI RAMAPPA DALWAI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT KURABAGODI HARUGERI, TALUK RAYABAG,
DISTRICT BELGAUM-591 220.
3. KANTU RAMU BYADAGI S/O SRI RAMAPPA BYADAGI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HARUGERI CROSS,
TALUK RAYABAG, DISTRICT BELGAUM-591 220.
4. BASAVARAJ RAGHAVENDRA KOTHA,
S/O SRI RAGHAVENDRA KOTHA @
GANGAPPA KOTHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HARUGERI, TALUK RAYABAG,
DISTRICT BELGAUM-591 220.
5. NYAMANNA PRADHANI NAGAVI,
S/O SRI PRADHANI NAGAVI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT HRIYAL TOTA, TALUK RAYABAG,
HARUGERI, DISTRICT BELGAUM-591 220.
6. AJITH NINGAPPA IRAGAR S/O SRI NINGAPPA IRAGAR,
OCC.: AGRICULTURIST, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT CHINCHALI, TALUK RAYABAG,
DISTRICT BELGAUM 591 220.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL)
2
AND:
1. THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHIKKODI SUB-DN, CHIKKODI REPRESENTED
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI SANGAPPA ITAPPA KAMBLE,
S/O ITAPPA KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT KUDACHI, RAYBAGH TALUK,
BELGAUM-591 220.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADYA, H.C.G.P. FOR R1,
SRI H.N. SUNILKUMAR AND N.S. MANJUNATH,
ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. C.C.
NO. 343/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY & ETC.
IN CRL.P. NO. 3442/2021
BETWEEN:
P. RAJIV S/O PANDURANGA,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC.: MLA,
KUDACHI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY,
HARUGERI TALUK, RAYABAG DIST,
BELAGAVI-590 004.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDACHI P.S
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI SANGAPPA ITAPPA KAMBLE,
S/O ITAPPA KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT KUDACHI, RAYBAGH TALUK, BELGAUM-591 220.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADYA, H.C.G.P. FOR R1,
SRI H.N. SUNILKUMAR AND N.S. MANJUNATH,
ADVOCATES FOR R2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. C.C.
NO. 343/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY & ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS PERTAIN TO PRINCIPAL BENCH,
BENGALURU, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY AT DHARWAD
BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Crl. P. No. 3442/2021 has been filed by the accused No.1
seeking quashing of the entirety of the proceedings pending
before the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City in Spl. C.C. No. 343/2018 and the order dated
05.02.2021 restoring the case for further proceedings and
issuing process against the petitioner for the offences punishable
under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 504, 506, 427 r/w Sec.
149 IPC and Sec. 3(i)(x) of SC & ST Prevention of Atrocity Act,
1989.
2. Crl. P. No. 6545/2020 has been filed by the accused Nos.2
to 7 seeking for setting aside of the charge sheet in Spl. C.C. No.
343/2018 pending on the file of the LXXXI Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City at Bengaluru, Special Court
exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected MPs/
MLAs in the State of Karnataka arising out of CC No. 7/2016 and
consequently quash the proceedings.
3. In light of both proceedings arising out of the same case
and identical factual matrix both petitions are taken up together
and disposed of by the common order.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners would submit that at the first instance pursuant to the
investigation final report under Sec. 173(2) came to be filed by
the jurisdictional Police on 05.03.2016. It is further submitted
that an application for further investigation was sought for on
17.12.2020 and on the basis of further statement of the
complainant-Sangappa and other material and further report u/S
173(8) came to be filed whereby Investigation Officer has
concluded that no evidence was made out as against the
accused. Further, u/S 173(8) was placed before the Court on
17.12.2020. Subsequently, on such material being placed, the
Special Judge by order dated 05.02.2021 has observed that in
view of the additional charge sheet filed by the Investigating
Officer and in light of the order dated 01.02.2021 case is
restored and taken up for further proceedings and summons
came to be issued to accused No.1 and non bailable warrant
against accused Nos.2 to 7 was ordered.
5. Learned Senior Counsel draws attention to the order dated
01.02.2021 which is as below:
"The parties are absent. There is no representation from
the IO. The learned Prosecutor is present and she submits that
she has not received copy of the further final report submitted
by the IO in the case.
Perused the relevant materials on record. In view of the
order dated 14.10.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
in Crl. P. No. 7162/2018 and in pursuant of the order dated
17.11.2020 of this Court, the IO took up further investigation of
the case and he has filed further final report under Sec.173(8) of
Cr.P.C. submitting that:
"F ¥ÀæPÁgÀªÁV F ¥ÀæPgÀ t À zÀ ºÉZÀĪ Ñ j
À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ
PÁ®PÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉU½ À UÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ®A 164 ¹Dgï.¦¹
£ÉÃzÀÝgr
À AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ºÉýPÉU½ À UÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ
17.10.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ ºÉýPÉU,É WÀl£Á ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è awæÃPÀj¸À¯ÁzÀ
«ÃrAiÉÆÃzÀ°£ è À zÀȱÁåªÀ½UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹zÁUÀ ¥ÀæPg
À t
À zÀ°£è À ªÀÄÆ®
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæz° À g
è ÀĪÀ ¸ÁPÀz ë ÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉU½ À UÉ MAzÀPÆ É ÌAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀPª À ÁUÀzÉ
vÀ¢égÀÄzÀÞªÁVgÀÄvÀªÛ .É PÁgÀt ¸Àzj À ºÉZÀĪ Ñ j
À ¥ÀæPgÀ tÀ zÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÀPÌÉ
¥ÀÆgÀPª À ÁzÀ ¸ÁPÀëåU¼ À ÀÄ zÉÆgÀPz À É DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ
ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀU¼ À ÀÄ ®¨sÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F ¥ÀæPÁgÀªÁV PÀ®A 173(8)
¹Dgï.¦¹ CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ CAwªÀÄ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°¸
è ¯
À ÁVzÉ."
Hence, in view of the above said additional final report filed by
the IO, this case shall be restored and proceeded with against
the accused persons as registered earlier.
In the result, the office shall restore the case in its
original number in Spl. C.C. No. 343/2018 and put up records
for further steps by 05.02.2021."
6. It is pointed out that though the report under Section
173(8) clearly and unambiguously states that no material is
available the conclusion arrived by the learned Special Judge is
contrary to such report and no reasons are assigned as to why
the report u/S 173(8) has not been taken note of in an
appropriate manner. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no. 256/2022 to
submit that the Court before proceeding as against the accused
must take note of the contents of the report u/S 173(2) as well
as 173(8) and then decide as to whether further proceedings are
to be taken. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order passed is
plainly contrary to the final report and cannot stand as being
reasoned enough to proceed as against the accused-petitioners.
7. Learned Government Pleader opposes the petitions but
submits that in the event petitions were to be allowed and
matter could be remanded back to the learned Special judge for
fresh consideration.
8. It is clear that the learned Special Judge before proceeding
against the accused ought to have taken note of both the reports
u/S 173(2) and 173(8) before deciding to proceed further. A
reading of the order also does not reflect application of mind
insofar as the report u/S 173(8) referred to in fact points out to
lack of evidence while the finding arrived at by the learned
Special judge is contrary to the plain conclusion u/S 173(8). The
Apex Court in the case of Luckose Zachariah @ Zak
Nedumchira Luke and Others Vs. Joseph Joseph and
Others (Criminal Appeal no. 256 of 2022 [arising out of
SLP (Crl) No. 9556 of 2021]) has observed that it is
necessary for the Magistrate to have due regard to both the
reports, the initial report which was submitted under Sec. 173(2)
as well as the supplementary report under Sec. 173(8) and
thereafter take a considered view as to whether there is ground
for presuming that the persons named as accused have
committed the offence. Clearly there appears to be no
application of mind before passing order and issuing process to
the accused.
9. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the material on record warrants setting aside of the
whole proceeding, however, it would not be appropriate to stifle
the prosecution at this stage itself. Taking note of the apparent
non application of mind by the learned Special Judge and
keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court, the orders
dated 01.02.2021 and 05.02.2021 are set aside and the learned
Special Judge to take note of the reports under Sec. 173(2) and
173(8) and decide afresh as to whether proceedings are to be
proceeded against the accused in light of the observation of the
Apex Court referred to above.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed off.
Registry to communicate the order to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bvv
