Anish Jose Antony vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 96 Kant

                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

          WRIT PETITION NO.9685 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

ANISH JOSE ANTONY
S/O. SRI. K.C. ANTONY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
KAITHACKAL HOUSE
CHEMMALAMATTOM P.O.
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
KERALA - 686 508.                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
      VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
      BENGALURU - 560 040.

2.    MISS GEETA R. SHINDHE
      AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
      2ND FLOOR, NO.773,
      8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
      MRCR LAYOUT
      VIJAYANAGARA
      BENGALURU CITY
      KARNATAKA - 560 040
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                              2


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION    482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME
NO.0104/2021 IN ANNEXURE-B OF RESPONDENT VIJAYANAGAR
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO
STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF FIR IN
CRIME NO.0104/2021 IN ANNEXURE-B OR AS THE CASE MAY
BE, CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED OR WHICH
MAY THEREAFTER BE FILED WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME
INCIDENT.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.12.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner party-in-

person under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India

read with 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR in Crime

No.104/2021 registered by the Vijayanagar Police Station,

Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections

354D, 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of petitioner/party-in-

person and counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP

for respondent No.1/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the

respondent No.2 filed first information statement before

the police alleging that the respondent No.2 said to be

practicing advocate in Bengaluru and guest teacher faculty

in Bangalore Law College at Bengaluru. The petitioner said

to be student in the said law college, studied in final year

during the year 2019-20 and he used to contact the

respondent No.2/complainant asking some doubt.

Thereafter, he continuously was approaching her and later

he used to chat with her though Watsapp and later she is

said to have blocked his mobile number and he tried to

contact respondent No.2/teacher through her sister, asking

about the blocking of his number. Subsequently, the

petitioner said to have proposed respondent No.2 to marry

her and she has refused. Inspite of the refusal, again the

petitioner continuously was chasing her and pressurizing

her to love him. The same was brought to the notice of

the principal of the college and the management, they also

advised the petitioner not to disturb her. Thereafter, once

again the petitioner said to have approached the sister of

the complainant in January 2021 and tried to talk with

respondent No.2/complainant. A complaint was also lodged

against him at Navanagar police, Hubballi. Thereafter,

again the accused was sending his proposal and sending

SMS and Whatsapp messages to her. Therefore, the

respondent gave complaint to the Vijayanagara Police

Station on 11.4.2021 and they registered non cognizable

offence and NCR was registered. Thereafter on 12.4.2021

the de-facto complainant approached the cyber crime

police and filed another complaint by improving the version

from the first complaint by giving date as 18.7.2022 by

mentioning fresh cause of action. Thereafter on 14.4.2021

once again the respondent No.2 filed complaint at

Vijayanagara Police Station and lodged the complaint

against the accused and police registered FIR for the above

said offences which is under challenge.

4. The petitioner though party-in-person but

presently he is practicing as advocate in Courts. He has

contended that the petitioner has filed complaint against

respondent No.2 for withholding his certificates on

10.4.2021. Therefore, she has filed a complaint against

him in Vijayanagar Police Station on 11.4.2021 a NCR was

registered No.105/2021 by following the procedure under

Section 155 (1) of Cr.P.C and the police have not

registered any case which was not challenged by

respondent no.2 but she has filed another complaint before

the Cyber crime police on 12.4.2021 and they also not

registered any case. Even otherwise she has stated the

offence against the petitioner only punishable under

section 506 of IPC, but later on 14.3.2021 she has filed the

3rd complaint by improving her version by adding section

354D of IPC and the police registered case against him.

Therefore, there are multiple complaint filed by respondent

No.2 and therefore 2nd and 3rd complaints are not

maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in various cases.

5. The learned HCGP contended that the police

previously registered NCR case but later the complainant

was directed to approach the Cyber crime police as the

accused was harassing the complainant through Watsapp

calls and SMS messages. But the cyber crime police did

not take any action against the petitioner therefore, she

has approached the Vijayanagara Police and once again

filed the complaint with some more materials. Therefore,

police are required to investigate the matter. There is no

FIR registered on the earlier complaint, therefore the

police can investigate the matter. Hence prayed for

dismissing the petition.

6. Per contra the counsel for respondent No.2 filed

statement of objection along with various documents and

contended that the petitioner was a student of respondent

No.2, he was proposing her to marry him by sending

messages through mobile phone. Inspite of her refusal the

accused was continuously harassing her and offence

attracts section 354 (D) of IPC, clearly. It will not attract

the principles of multiple investigation against the

petitioner. Merely the complainant not challenged the

previous complaint which was registered for non

cognizable offence that cannot be a violation of the article

20 (2) of the Constitution of India. In the FIR there is

cognizable offences made out against the petitioner,

therefore matter requires to be investigated by the police,

hence prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments of the party-in-

person and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and

learned counsel for respondent No.2. The sum and

substance of the case of the petitioner is that though the

respondent No.2 filed a complaint for the offence under

section 506 of IPC, the NCR was registered which was not

challenged by her. Subsequently, the respondent No.2

also approached cyber crime police and they have not

taken any action. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed

under section 154 of Cr.P.C where the police registered the

FIR and investigated the matter. It is an admitted fact in

the previous complaint, the police have not investigated

the matter and not filed any final reports. Ofcourse, the

respondent No.2 has stated, in the earlier complaint the

accused is threatening her. However, she has stated that

the accused continuously is harassing her and proposed to

marry her but in the subsequent complaint she has alleged

the offence under section 354 D of IPC against the

accused. For the convenience, the 354 (D) of IPC is read

as under:

354D. Stalking.--

(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

On bear reading of the Section 354(D), it clearly attracts

the averments made in the complaint by the de-facto

complainant.

8. The counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the

judgment in "T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala" and

connected matters reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 it is

held in Para 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, as under;

"15. On these contentions, four points arise for determination:

(i) whether registration of a fresh case, Crime No. 268 of 1997, Kuthuparamba Police Station on the basis of the letter of the DGP dated 2-7-1997 which is in the nature of the second FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C, is valid and it can form the basis of a fresh investigation;

(ii) whether the appellants in Appeals Nos.

689 and 4066 of 2001 [arising out of SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1522 and 8840 of 2000] and the respondent in Appeals Nos. 690-91 of 2001 [arising out of SLPs

(Crl.) Nos. 2724-25 of 2000] have otherwise made out a case for quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 268 of 1997, Kuthuparamba Police Station;

(iii) what is the effect of the report of Shri K. Padmanabhan Commission of Inquiry; and

(iv) whether the facts and the circumstances of the case justify a fresh investigation by CBI.

19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Cr.P.C on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC.

20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.

22. On a perusal of the judgment of this Court in M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka [(1999) 3 SCC 247 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 397] we do not find anything contra to what is stated above. The case is distinguishable on facts of that case. In the case on hand the second FIR is filed in respect of the same incident and on the same facts after about three years.

23. The right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under CrPC. In Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18 : 46 Cri LJ 413] the Privy Council spelt out the power of the investigation of the police, as follows : (AIR p. 22)

"In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as Their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court.""

On perusal of the case on hand, admittedly there is

no FIR or multiple FIRs registered against the petitioner

except the present FIR which is under challenge. Though

only previously only 506 of IPC is made out by the

complainant in her complaint but the fact remains the

petitioner sent Watsapp messages and continuously

approaching the respondent No.2 for marrying him as he

had fallen in love with her and inspite of she refusing his

proposal, again he was continuously approaching

pressurising her and proposing for marriage, which is

nothing but pressurising her either to love him or marry

him which attract section 354(D) of IPC. Whether the

offence under section 504 of IPC attracts or not it is a

matter of investigation, but there is direct evidences which

is required to be investigated by the police and police can

file Final report after the investigation.

9. The petitioner relied upon variously judgment of

the supreme court in (a) State of Haryana and Others

Vs Bhajan Lal and Ors 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335,

(b) Kumari Venkataratnam Vs Unknown (1947) 1

MLJ 359 Madras High Court and (c) Manik Taneja Vs

State of Karnataka (2015, 7 SCC 423 in respect of

essential ingredients of the offences regarding criminal

intimidation and for the offences punishable under

Sections 504 of IPC but the fact remains the petitioner

being a law student where the respondent No.2 was a

guest faculty who is a teacher for this petitioner and he

was pressurizing her for loving him and to marry him and

also sending Watsapp messages and making threatening

calls to her. It is unfortunate that a student pressuring

teacher to love him and marry him inspite of her refusal

and he was always chasing her. Such being the case, the

matter requires to be investigated by the police.

Therefore, at this stage it is not a fit stage for quashing

FIR on the ground that there was multiple FIR against him

on the same cause of action. Therefore, the petition is

devoid of merits liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV