Karnataka High Court
Sri Praveen G N vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2023
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9354 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9312 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9349 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9365 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9486 OF 2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9354 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI PRAVEEN G N
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O NANJAPPA G,
R/AT GARJE VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 140
WORKING AT AKKUR POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI NISHAN G K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2
2. SRI ANUMANDALA RAJESH REDDY
S/O A PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 2-1-94, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
HANMAKONDA WARANGAL,
TELANGANA - 506 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO 1.QUASH ORDER DATED 01.08.2022 IN
PCR.NO.57/2022 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.57/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, CHANNAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 211, 220, 417, 420, 506, 342,
347, 348 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A) AND
ETC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9312 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI NAGARAJU K.R.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE G KEMPAIAH,
HEAD CONSTABLE,
GUMMANAHALLI, SASALU HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-561204
WORKING AT KUDUR POLICE STATION,
MAGADI CIRCLE,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI NISHAN G K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
3
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI ANUMANDALA RAJESH REDDY A
S/O A PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 2-1-94, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
HANMAKONDA WARANGAL,
TELANGANA-506001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASHING ORDER DATED 01.08.2022
IN PCR NO.57/2022 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR
NO.57/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC CHANNAPATNA FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 211, 220, 417, 420, 506, 342, 347, 348 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC ANNEXURE A.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9349 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI PRAKASH B K
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI NISHAN G K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
4
2. SRI ANUMANDALA RAJESH REDDY
S/O A PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 2-1-94, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
HANMAKONDA WARANGAL,
TELANGANA-506001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 01.08.2022 IN
PCR.NO.57/2022 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.57/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C, CHANNAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 211, 220, 417, 420, 506, 342, 347, 348
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC. (ANNEXURE-A).
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9365 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI SHIVARAJU KUMBAVORA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O NAGAPPA,
HEAD CONSTABLE,
R/AT GUNDAGATTI POST AND VILLAGE,
HARAPANHALLI TALUK,
TELAGI HOBLI,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583137
WORKING AT THAVAREKERE POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562130 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI NISHAN G K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
5
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI ANUMANDALA RAJESH REDDY
S/O A PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 2-1-94, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
HANMAKONDA WARANGAL,
TELANGANA-506001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2022
IN PCR.NO.57/2022 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.57/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C CHANNAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 211, 220, 417, 420, 506, 342, 347, 348
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A)
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9486 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI RAJA M
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE V MUNIRAJU,
ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR,
R/OF NO.684/B5,
RAGAVENDRA BADAVANE,
NEAR DA POLICE COLONY,
CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160
WORKING AT CHANNAPATNA RURAL
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE,
RAMANAGARA - 562 160 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI NISHAN G K, ADVOCATE)
6
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI ANUMANDALA RAJESH REDDY
S/O A PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 2-1-94, SARASWATHI NAGAR,
HANMAKONDA WARANGAL,
TELANGANA-506001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2022
IN PCR NO.57/2022 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR
NO.57/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC CHANNAPATNA FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 211, 220, 417, 420, 506, 342, 347, 348 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 66(B), 66(7) OF IT ACT
2000 (ANNEXURE-A).
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.5.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
7
ORDER
Crl.P.No.9349/2022 filed by petitioner/accused No.4
and other four petitions Crl.P.Nos.9354/2022, 9312/2022,
9365/2022 and 9486/2022 are filed by accused Nos.8 to
11 respectively under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing
the PCR.No.57/2022 and to quash the FIR in Crime
No.73/2022 registered by the Channapatna East Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 211,
220, 417, 420 506 342, 347, 348 read with Section 34 of
IPC pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Channapatna, Ramanagara District.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
petitioner in all 5 cases, learned HCGP for the State and
learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant.
3. The case of the petitioners are that respondent
No.2 defacto-complainant filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the same is registered as PCR
No.57/2022 and got it referred to the police station for the
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in turn the
Channapatna East Police registered FIR against the
petitioners and others for the offence punishable as per the
aforementioned Sections. It is alleged by the defacto-
complainant that on 04.11.2020 the petitioner/accused
No.4 being Police Sub-Inspector and accused Nos.8 to 11
are the Police Constables working in Channapatna Police
Station apprehended the defacto complainant at
Bangalore. They said to have been snatched the mobile
phone, laptop and taken him to the police station in
respect of Crime No.102/2020 and they have produced
before the Magistrate. In turn, he was remanded to judicial
custody, subsequently he was released on bail.
Thereafter, the private complaint filed by the complainant
before the Magistrate, it is alleged that accused Nos.3 to 5
along with these defacto complainant are founder of
Meditrix, a predictive and preventive health care analytics
company in Andhra Pradesh. There was some inter se
quarrel between the partners and accused No.5 has filed
complaint to the police and in pursuance of the said
complaint, the present petitioner apprehended the defacto
complainant and they harassed and manhandled him, they
destroyed the programmes in the laptop and obtained the
signature on the blank papers in the police station. They
have manipulated various documents at the instance of
accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5. The dispute
between the complainant and his partners were civil
dispute, where the police registered a false case and
seized the articles, thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 and
accused No.5 in collusion with these petitioners filed a
false case against him. After registering of the complaint,
the complaint has been referred to police station under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in turn FIR has been
registered against the petitioner for police officials and
others which is under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing
for petitioners strenuously contended and challenged FIR
and complaint mainly on the grounds, that the petitioners
are police officials who have acted as per the law, they
apprehended the complainant in criminal case registered
against respondent No.2 in Crime No.102/2020 and they
have discharged official duty, where the respondent No.2
prevented the police officials from discharging their official
duty, therefore one more case has been registered against
respondent No.2 in Crime No.103/2020 for the offence
punishable under Section 353 of IPC and in order to
overcome those cases, a false complaint has been filed
against petitioners.
5. The learned counsel further contended the
petitioners are police officials, they said to be done the
offence while discharging the official duty, therefore a
protection is available under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and a
sanction is required to prosecute a case against them. The
complainant not taken any sanction from the complainant
authority, therefore the complaint as well as FIR is not
sustainable and liable to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel further contended that there
is violation of guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in
(2015) 6 SCC 287. He has not approached the police for
filing the complaint, he has directly filed the private
complaint before the Magistrate and got it referred.
Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in view of the
violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case.
7. The learned Senior counsel further contended
that there is delay in filing the complaint for more than
400 days. Therefore, the complaint cannot be entertained,
there is a bar for taking cognizance under section 468 of
Cr.P.C and further contended there is no offences made
out against petitioners and there is no ingredient to attract
any of the offences for taking cognizance or investigate the
matter. The learned counsel also submits there is no
specific allegation made against the accused Nos.8 to 11
who are police constables, hence prayed for allowing the
petitions.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 objected the petitions and contended that there is no
delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged offence
punishable with 7 years of imprisonment and therefore,
Section 468 of Cr.P.C. has no bar for taking cognizance. He
further contended that in respect of sanction it is not
required for the investigation as per the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandan Kumar
Basu vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 13 SCC 70
and in the case of Rajib Ranjan and others vs. R
Vijaykumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513 and
contended that the accused committed the offence
conspired with accused No.5 and therefore, the offence
committed by accused No.4 and accused Nos.8 to 11 are
not during the discharging of the official duty. Therefore,
the sanction is not required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
The said principle has not been brought to the notice of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Devaraja vs.
Owais Shabir Hussain reported in (2020) & SCC 695,
in CRl.A.No.458/2020 (arising out of SLP
Crl.1882/2018) and further contended that the
complaint filed against the police, therefore, when the
written complaint was filed against the same police official
of Channaptana police, they refused to receive the
complaint, hence, they filed complaint to the DGP and the
same is produced before the Magistrate as per document
No.25. Therefore, respondent No.2 complied the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Priyanka Srivastava's case and further contended that
the FIR registered against respondent No.2 in Crime
No.102/2020 where the case was referred to the CID
investigation, they have filed 'B' final report and therefore,
it is contended that the matter is required for investigation
by the police. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petitions.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader
also objected the petitions and submitted that after
registering the FIR within a month, stay has been granted,
the police were unable to find out the truth and it is in pre-
matured stage. The police are ready to investigate the
matter. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petitions.
10. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
the records, which reveals, there was inter se dispute
between the partners of the company i.e., respondent
No.2, accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5. Subsequently,
accused No.5 said to be filed complaint to the
Channapatna Police as against respondent No.2-defacto
complainant. A case in Crime No.102/2020 was registered
in Channapatna Police on 04.11.2020. Accused No.4 is the
PSI and accused Nos.8 to 11 who are the Police Constables
under the instruction of the PSI, they apprehended
respondent No.2 at Cunningham Road and he was taken to
the Channapatna Police where a investigation was
conducted by accused No.4-PSI in respect of Crime
No.102/2020. It is alleged by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that during the custody of respondent
No.2, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 came to the police station
on 04.11.2020, obtained signature on the blank papers
and other documents and used the said documents against
respondent No.2 and the same was misused by accused
No.5 stating that respondent No.2 has resigned from the
company. But it was forcefully taken the signature of
respondent No.2 in the Police Station when he was in
custody. of course, the police might have obtained the
signature of the complainant for the purpose of helping
accused No.5 who is the complainant in Crime
No.102/2020. However, the investigation was conducted
by the PSI-accused No.4 in respect of Crime No.102/2020.
Subsequently, respondent No.2 got remanded to the
judicial custody and he was released on bail on
10.11.2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that later the investigation was handed
over to the CID police, 'B' final report has been filed and it
is pending for consideration. However, the petitioner-
accused No.4-PSI and accused Nos.8 to 11 are Police
Constables have committed the offence during the
discharge of their official duty while investigation in Crime
No.102/2020. Therefore, the sanction under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C. is required to proceed against them for the purpose
of any investigation. In this regard, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Devaraja stated
supra, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the
similar situation has held at paragraph Nos.74, 75, 76, 77
which are as under:
"74. It is well settled that an application under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is
maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex
facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse
of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint,
the act alleged appears to have a reasonable
relationship with official duty, where the criminal
proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides
and instituted with ulterior motive, power under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would
have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to
prevent abuse of process of court.
75. There is also no reason to suppose that
sanction will be withheld in case of prosecution,
where there is substance in a complaint and in any
case if, in such a case, sanction is refused, the
aggrieved complainant can take recourse to law. At
the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the
records of the instant case clearly reveal that the
complainant alleged of police excesses while the
respondent was in custody, in the course of
investigation in connection with Crime No.
12/2012. Patently, the complaint pertains to an act
under colour of duty.
76. Significantly, the High Court has by its
judgment [H. Siddappa v. Owais Sabeer Hussain,
2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3805] and order observed :
(H. Siddappa case [H. Siddappa v. Owais Sabeer
Hussain, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3805] , SCC OnLine
Kar para 5)
5. ... it is well-recognised principle of law that
sanction is a legal requirement which empowers
the court to take cognizance so far as the public
servant is concerned. If at all the sanction is
absolute requirement, if takes cognizance it
becomes illegal, therefore, an order to overcome
any illegality the duty of the Magistrate is that even
at any subsequent stages if the sanction is raised it
is the duty of the Magistrate to consider.
77. In our considered opinion, the High Court
clearly erred in law in refusing to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the order of the
Magistrate impugned taking cognizance of the
complaint, after having held that it was a
recognised principle of law that sanction was a
legal requirement which empowers the court to
take cognizance. The Court ought to have
exercised its power to quash the complaint instead
of remitting the appellant to an application under
Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek
discharge."
11. Though the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 has contended and relied upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand
(Paniwala) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others
reported in (1981) 1 SCC 639 and in the cases of
Chandan Kumar Basu and Rajib Ranjan both stated
supra, where the alleged offence in the said case were
468, 420, 120B and those offences were not connected
with discharging the official duty. Therefore, those
judgments are not applicable to the case on hand.
12. As regard to the another contention raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no
compliance of guidelines issued in Priyanka Srivastava's
case, where respondent No.2 has not approached the
Police and directly has filed the private complaint. In this
regard, respondent counsel produced the copy of the
complaint filed before the DG and IGP on 27.11.2021 and
contended that he took the complainant to the Police
Station, but they refused to lodge the complaint, therefore,
he has filed complaint to the Higher officers of the Police
Station who is the DGP of the State. Therefore, he has
complied the guidelines issued in Priyanka Srivastava's
case. Of course, the complainant-respondent No.2 not
produced any copy of the complaint filed against the
Channapatna Police at Channapatna Police Station. But it is
pertinent to note that the complaint is against accused
No.4 who is the PSI of Channapatna Police Station and
definitely he might have refused. Of course, the
complainant could have filed the complaint before the
Superintendent of Police as per Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C.,
but the complaint came to be filed before the DG and IGP.
It is brought to the notice of this Court and as per the 'B'
final report and enquiry made by the CID Police, the PSI
registered the case on the complaint filed by accused No.5
at the instance of the Superintendent of Police one Girish,
at that time, he was S.P. of Ramanagar District. Such
being the case, definitely the complaint was filed before
the PSI as well as S.P. either under Sections 154(1) or
154(3) of Cr.P.C., they might have refused. Therefore, the
complaint came to be filed before the DGP. However, the
complainant might have sent the complaint to the Police
Station through RPAD either to the Police Station or to the
Superintendent of Police, but respondent No.2 has not
chosen to send the complaint to the Police as per Section
154(1) or to the Superintendent of Police under Section
154(3) of Cr.P.C., but filed complaint directly to the
Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and got it referred
to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by filing a
complaint to Inspector General and Deputy General of
Police. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka
Srivastava's case. Therefore, on this court, the FIR
registered by the Police on the complaint referred by the
Magistrate is not sustainable under the law.
13. As regards to the delay in lodging the
complaint, of course, he was released on bail on
10.11.2020, but the complaint came to be filed before the
Magistrate on 30.03.2022 i.e., more than 1½ years.
However, in view of the findings above, for non compliance
of the guidelines issued in the Priyanka Srivastava's
case and not obtained any sanction under Section 197 of
Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to consider the delay in lodging
the complaint and also this Court is not required to go into
the ingredients of the provisions of Section mentioned in
the complaint. Therefore, I am of the view, in view of the
non compliance of Priyanka Srivastava's case, without
sanction, the Police cannot investigate the matter and
even the Magistrate cannot refer the complaint under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for requirement of sanction.
Therefore, the complaint as well as FIR required to be
quashed as it is abuse of process of law.
14. Accordingly, all the five petitions are allowed.
15. The proceedings against the petitioners-
accused Nos.4 and 8 to 11 in PCR No.57/2022 pending on
the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna
and in Crime No.73/2022 pending on the file of I Additional
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Channapatna, Ramanagara
District are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV/GBB
