Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. S. Yeddyurappa vs The Criminal Investigating Department ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
R
Reserved on : 17.01.2025
Pronounced on : 07.02.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.15522 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
C/W
Digitally
signed by
WRIT PETITION No.18538 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location:
High court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad IN WRIT PETITION No.15522 OF 2024
Bench,
Dharwad
BETWEEN:
SRI B.S.YEDDYURAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT NO.381, 6TH CROSS
80 FEET ROAD, RMV II STAGE
DOLLARS COLONY
BENGALRUU - 560 094.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING DEPARTMENT (CID)
THE SADASHIV NAGAR POLICE
SHESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
2. SRI SHAHSHANK SINGH
S/O HARERAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.D1181, DLF WESTEND HEIGHTS
AKSHAYA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 114.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.06.2024
... RESPONDENTS
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR A/W.,
SRI ASHOK N.NAIK. SPL. PP FOR R1;
SRI S.BALAKRISHAN, ADVOVATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD. 14.03.2024
FILED BEFORE THE SADHASHIVNAGAR POLICE, NOW
INVESTIGATED BY THE RESPONDENT CID PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-I, BENGALURU (VIDE ANNX-
A) AND ETC.,
3
IN WRIT PETITION No.18538 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . ARUNA Y. M.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.507, 4TH CROSS
SANTHOSH NAGAR
PIPELINE ROAD
T.DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 057.
2 . RUDRESHA MARULASIDDIAH
S/O MARULASIDDIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.14, SOMAPURA, KENGERI HOBLI
VIDYAPEETA POST, BSK 6TH STAGE
KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060.
3 . MARISWAMY G.,
S/O GANGADHARAYYA M.,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
KAREGUDDADAHALLI
CHIKKABANAVARA
BENGALURU - 560 090.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING DEPARTMENT (CID)
CARTLON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUJTOR
4
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENT
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR A/W.,
SRI ASHOK N.NAIK. SPL. PP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 14.03.2024 IN CR.
NO.84/2024 REGISTERED BY THE SADHASHIVNAGAR POLICE NOW
INVESTIGATED BY RESPONDENT - CID IN CR. NO.9/2024 FOR
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND UNDER SECTION 354(A)
OF IPC AND CONSEQUENT ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT - I
(VIDE ANNEXURE B) AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 17.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
WRIT PETITION NO. 15522 OF 2024
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
proceedings in Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024 pending before the Fast
Track Special Court-I, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.84 of
5
2024, re-registered as Crime No.9 of 2024 for offences punishable
under Sections 354A, 204, 214 r/w 37 of the IPC and Section 8 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO
Act' for short) and the consequent action of issuance of summons.
2. The facts, adumbrated, are as follows:-
The petitioner, an octogenarian, and former Chief Minister of
the State of Karnataka, avers to be the most decorated politician,
having been in politics for the last 54 years. It is the case of the
prosecution that a complaint comes to be registered on 14-03-2024
alleging that the complainant along with her daughter who was a
minor, visits the petitioner to seek help in respect of a cheating
case relating to the trading business and her investments. It is
alleged that the complainant spoke for about 9 minutes with regard
to the manner in which she was cheated during the said period. At
that point in time, both the mother and the daughter drink tea and
leave the house after the said conversation. In the interregnum, it
is said that the complainant insisted the petitioner to get the
complainant's case investigated by constituting a Special
6
Investigating Team on the ground that she was cheated of several
crores. It is then, the complainant alleges that the daughter
complained to her that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner
taking her inside the room. This is the complaint so registered on
14-03-2024. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.84
of 2024 initially for offences punishable under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act and Section 354A of the IPC. Thereafter, the
investigation is transferred to the Crime Investigation Department
which registers a separate crime renumbering the earlier crime to
be Crime No.9 of 2024.
3. A notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. is issued upon
the petitioner on 28-3-2024, asking his presence before the
Investigating Officer, for questioning, in connection with the
aforesaid crime. The petitioner is said to have given voice sample
later. The petitioner on 10-06-2024 was again called and his
statement was recorded. Another notice comes to be issued on
12-06-2024. The petitioner was to be away, from Bangalore and
travel to New Delhi on account of his political commitments
previously fixed. The Investigating Officer does not heed to the
7
request for postponement of recording of statement of the
petitioner, the Investigating Officer would secure a warrant of
arrest at the hands of the concerned Court, which then drives the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court protects
the petitioner by directing that no arrest of the petitioner should
take place. During the pendency of the subject petition, the CID
conducts investigation and files its final report before the concerned
Court. The concerned Court registers Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024
by taking cognizance against the petitioner and others for the
afore-quoted offences and issues summons to all. Issuance of
summons leads the petitioner to file an application seeking
amendment of the petition raising a challenge to the entire charge
sheet and proceedings before the concerned Court. It is at that
stage the matter is heard.
4. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior
counsel/Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1
and Sri S. Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
8
SUBMISSIONS:
Petitioner's:
5. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh takes this Court
through the complaint at the outset to contend that the first
informant was by then a habitual complainant. She has registered
58 cases, against several people, and few cases are registered
against her, by several people. This is to buttress his submission
that the mother of the victim was a habitual and disgruntled
complainant. He would then take this Court through the evidence
recorded by the Investigating Officer of the prosecution witnesses
who would all support the case of the petitioner, by taking through
each one of the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer.
The learned senior counsel submits that no such thing, as alleged,
has ever happened in the case at hand. He would contend that
allegations against the petitioner are for political reasons, to arm-
twist or wreak vengeance, from the hands of habitual complainant.
5.1. The petitioner only spoke to the mother of the child and
on several occasions had told that the victim was like his grand
9
daughter and he has seven grand daughters. He is now 82 years
old, not in a position even to switch on lights of his house, as he
needs assistance for everything. In this state of affairs, the learned
senior counsel submits, how can he put his hand into the shirt of
the victim and squeeze her breast, as alleged. He would, therefore,
contend that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer
of the prosecution witnesses themselves, should be taken note of
and entire proceedings should be obliterated.
5.2. It is his emphatic submission that the order of taking
cognizance suffers from blatant non-application of mind, as the
concerned Court in few irrelevant lines takes cognizance of the
offences against all the accused including the petitioner for offences
punishable under Sections 354A, 204, 214 r/w 37 of the IPC and
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which cannot even be attributed to the
petitioner. He would contend that the order of taking cognizance
suffering from want of application of mind should be quashed, like
his submission that the entire proceedings should be quashed. He
would therefore contend that the proceedings impugned should be
quashed lock, stock, and barrel.
10
Respondents:
Special Public Prosecutor:
6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
Sri Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the respondent/CID would
vehemently contend that the Court exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would not quash the proceedings basing
its reasons on the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer
at the time of investigation, be it in favour of the accused or the
complainant. It is not the stage at which this Court would consider
all these facts. He would submit that the conversation between the
mother of the victim and the petitioner, after the alleged incident, is
recorded on the mobile phone. This recording was sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory. It is confirmed that it is the voice of the
petitioner, and not morphed. He would, therefore, read the
transcript of the conversation to contend that the petitioner has
admitted his act by defending that he has only checked her. He
would thus contend that it is an open and shut case. It is his
contention that, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out
clean.
11
6.1. Insofar as the order of cognizance is concerned, the
learned senior counsel would submit that when the Court is taking
cognizance on a final report by the police, it is not necessary for the
Court to record elaborate reasons, at the time of taking of
cognizance. It would suffice if it is worded appropriately. The
learned senior counsel submits that there can be no warrant of
even interference to the order of taking cognizance. He would
submit that the petition should be dismissed.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused
the material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The political
career of the petitioner is a matter of record and it would not
require any reiteration. The complainant and her daughter meet
the petitioner at his residence on 02-02-2024. On the said date, it
is alleged that the petitioner took the daughter/victim inside the
12
room and indulged in ingredients that would become offence under
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, apart from Section 354A of the IPC. It
is the case of the complainant that she comes back, to the house of
the petitioner to question him about the manner in which he has
behaved with her daughter. After about 40 days of the said
incident, the complainant registers the crime. Since the entire
issue is triggered from registration of complaint, I deem it
appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint dated 14-03-
2024 reads as follows:
"14-03-2024
To
The Inspector,
Sadashivanagara PS,
Bengaluru.
From:
Ms.Mamatha Singh,
D1161, DLF Westend Heights,
Akshayanagara, Begur,
Bengaluru-560 114, Mob: 9632761281.
Sub: Complaint against B.S. Yediyurappa on sexually
assaulting a minor rape victim.
Respected Sir,
On February 2, me (Mamatha Singh) and my daughter, a
minor rape victim (Gauri Singh) visited former Chief
Minister B.S.Yediyurappa to seek help on my cheating
case related to trading business.
13
Mr. Yediyurappa began to listen to my problem keenly on
how I got cheated. Me and Mr. Yediyurappa spoke for
around 9 minutes and he told his male maids to provide
tea. Me and my daughter drank tea while speaking to
him. During the nine minutes conversation I also
informed that my daughter is a rape victim and then he
said he know about her case. This was not the first time
me and my daughter met Yediyurappa for support and I
have documentary evidence.
I beseeched him to investigate my cases by constituting a
Special Investigation Team (SIT) as I was cheated of several
crores. Mr. Yediyurappa said he may not be able to support.
And all along the conversation he was holding my daughter's
hand. My daughter considers him as grandfather and calls him
Thatha and I used to call him Appaji.
After about nine minutes he called my daughter to come
inside. My daughter listened to him and went. My
daughter and Yediyurappa were inside a room for at least
5 minutes. During that time, Mr. Yediyurappa asked
about the rape accused and can she still remember his
face. Later while talking to my daughter who is a minor
rape victim, he slipped his hand inside her shirt and
squeezed her right breast. My daughter immediately
pushed him away. Then she asked to open the door
which was locked by him when he took her inside.
Mr. Yediyurappa told her to calm down and slowly opened the
door. My daughter came out rushing and weeping. Mr.
Yediyurappa on meeting me again told that my daughter is
mentally disturbed. As my daughter was crying, I asked her
what happened. My daughter said he put his hand inside
and squeezed her breast. Angered by this, I confronted
Yediyurappa and asked him why you did this. He then
said I was just checking her whether she was really
raped or not. I asked him how can you do this?
Immediately, Mr. Yediyurappa tuned apologetic and offered to
help in cheating case. However, when I found my daughter to
be emotionally broken I refused the offer. Later, I again
confronted Mr. Yediyurappa and demanded an explanation for
which he told me not to reveal the incident in an intimidating
14
manner. I went back feeling threatened and did not had the
courage to report the mater. However, I now thought over the
issue and felt that this is too serious issue to be ignored. Hence,
I am approaching you to register my complaint under relevant
sections of POCSO and other legal provisions.
Regards,
Sd/- Mamatha Singh."
(Emphasis added)
The complaint is registered before the jurisdictional Police. This
becomes a crime in Crime No.84 of 2024. The matter is transferred
for investigation to the CID where the crime is renumbered as
Crime No.9 of 2024. On 28-03-2024 comes the first notice against
the petitioner under Section 41A of the CrPC seeking his presence.
The notice reads as follows:
. . .
(41 PÁè¸ï (J) ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ CrAiÀÄ°è )
!"#$ %&'
( . :09/2024 :8 PÉÆìà )&*+ , 354(-) . ( &/ 0!$ %&'
( . : 84/2024) 1 $2) 3 4 56 7 8 9 :;&$' <! =:$ > 8
? & : 12.04.2024 " &@ $ . 0 216, 3 A , C BC-1 56D, . . E5 ,
!"#$ F G 1 $2 8H&I)&>!" 8H J&K &! L M&@ ."
Voice sample of the petitioner is later taken and the petitioner is
directed to appear before the Investigating Officer yet again in the
15
month of June 2024. The petitioner appears on 10-06-2024 and
was directed to appear again on 12-06-2024 on which day the
petitioner had a previously fixed political engagement and had to
travel to New Delhi and in fact flew to New Delhi. But, the
Investigating Officer would go before the concerned Court and
secures a warrant of arrest under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. alleging
that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. Then
the petitioner immediately knocks at the doors of this Court in the
subject petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court on 14-06-2024
by a detailed order grants an interim order. The order reads as
follows:
"Submission of learned counsel is accepted and Office
Objections in Crl.P.No.5529/2024 are overruled.
The case in W.P.No.15522/2024 (GM-RES) filed under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeks quashment of proceedings arising from Crime
No.84/2024 of Sadashivanagar police station, Bangalore. It
alleges offences punishable under section 8 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 354A of Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner is directed to array
Mr.Shashank Singh i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.15639/2024 (GM-
RES) as 2nd respondent.
Learned Advocate General Mr. Shashikiran Shetty accepts
notice for Respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Balakrishnan, learned
counsel volunteers to appear for Respondent No.2.
16
The case in Crl.P.No.5529/2024 is filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.
for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the same Crime
Number.
The records reveal that the Police had issued a notice
under Section 41A of CR.P.C., on 28.03.2024 for the
appearance and accordingly, the Petitioner appeared before the
Investigating Officer and thereby, participated in the
investigation process. The second notice of the first kind dated
10.06.2024, served on the Petitioner on 11.06.2024, instructed
him to appear on 12.06.2024 at 10.30 a.m. for interrogation.
Petitioner by his reply dated 11.06.2024 told the police that he
would come on 17.06.2024, he having some scheduled
meetings at New Delhi. In fact, he flew to New Delhi on the
night of 12.06.2024. Therefore, it cannot be said the petitioner
is not cooperating in the investigation.
Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.C.V.Nagesh appearing for the
petitioner submits that the power to arrest availing u/s 41
having not been exercised and the notice procedure u/s 41A of
the Cr.P.C. having been adopted consciously and his client
having already participated in the investigation process and
further, assuring to participate again on 17.06.2024, the police
could not have secured a warrant of arrest u/s 73 on the ground
that the custodial investigation is necessary. He draws attention
of the court to the material particulars of the case as to the
incident of the offence, delay brooked in lodging the FIR, the
credentials of the complainant who breathed her last in the
recent past on account of cancer and the nature of allegations
leveled against the petitioner. He also mentions about a
plethora of cases filed by the complainant against others and
that they are all frivolous as is the case against his client too.
Further, he also mentioned about the political vendetta. So
arguing, he seeks stay of all further proceedings.
Learned Advocate General per contra makes submission
that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation
process; the police notice dated 10.06.2024 has been violated
with no justification whatsoever; even otherwise, custodial
interrogation has become imperative; regard being had to
seriousness of the offences involved and the political
background from which the petitioner hails, no interim relief can
17
be granted to him. Mr.S.Balan appearing for the now added 2nd
respondent in the quashment petition, also made similar
submission, highlighting the recent demise of complainant and
lethargy attributable to the police in the matter of investigation.
He also notifies to the court his client's W.P.No.15639/2024
wherein, he has sought for arrest and detention of the
petitioner and for a direction to accomplish the investigation on
a war footing.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for some
time and having perused the Petition papers, I am of the
considered opinion that at this stage, no case is made out for
halting the ongoing investigation in Crime No.84/2024 and that
the petitioner should participate in the same by appearing
before the jurisdictional Police on 17.06.2024 as was assured by
him. That being said, the petitioner, who is a former Chief
Minister of the State for multiple times and who is now an
octogenarian, shall not be arrested when he appears before
police and cooperates in the investigation process.
Very many issues canvassed by both the sides merit
deeper examination after the filing of Statement of Objections,
for which time as sought for, is granted.
Call these matters on 28.06.2024."
Again on 12-07-2024, the coordinate Bench passes the following
order:
"Learned Addl. SPP seeks a short accommodation. Learned
counsel Sri.Balakrishan appearing for the respondent is agreeable
with the request.
Learned Sr. Advocate sri. C V Nagesh appearing for the
petitioner vehemently opposes the adjournment contending that
the Charge Sheet having been filed, cognizance of the offences has
been taken by the court below in Spl.C.C.No.1283/2024 and his
client's personal presence too is being insisted upon on the Monday
imminent, i.e., the next hearing date.
18
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
noticed the attending circumstances, the request for the
adjournment is accorded and the matter is adjourned to 26.7.2024.
The learned judge of the court below is requested to grant
exemption from personal appearance of the Petitioner-accused till
this matter is taken up by this Court on 26.7.2024."
The interim protection so granted is in subsistence even today.
Since the investigation was not stayed, the CID concludes the
investigation and files its final report - the charge sheet before the
concerned Court. The summary of the charge sheet so filed by the
CID reads as follows:
" N& ' :
< .-1
. O.-
- P$¥Àà:
? & : 02-02-2024 $ " Q R&$ 11-15 ! S .gÁå &$ & T
U$ $, 9 !"V & WX& 17 YZ [&\-2 $ $ !"#$
0!$ &/ 0!$ %&'& ]&=., [ > 0 .381, ^ "@> 6 )&1 , <_- :
2 A , !"#$ $ G < .-1 $ $0 ` a R& , .X&Z &$$ 9 !"
(M b < A c7&=;&$ 1 $2 ,F :;&$!" G &= d @ ) D 7
) ) +, < ?0 < .-1 $ $ .gÁå &$ ? R& &D 7&, & W
4 e0 f 560 ` * (Wrist) 9 -D e 8 b ) ,+ 0 $< .-1
. $ $
& W 0 ` "d"
d" &"
& - J J&g0
J&g0 3 GF + A[ h& , S 4g
!"V F$ d i nAU $ i ) D J @ &@ L 0`j 1
& W 4 4 80 80` ( M
"80` k R& A < . l 0. * "
- ) &!,
&!, & W Jn
"Jn 0. " - 02 &> J 0 $< .-1
.
$ $ <! 80 -Y 6 C- ) &! & W <$ YZ - J "V]&!
< .-1
. $ $ ªÀÄä -D e8 & W &1 d" ) e J&W <) 4 - 0`
b W + o2 & W &4> D 0` -D e8 < .-1
. $ $)e 0` p
q r $J @8 " &@ 7 s>"
s> - J +> 0 $< .-1
. $ $ 0`
19
eÉé0 G + q r A2 7 & W )e G F5 6 J @t _ M&B 7
J $ J @$ 7&, . 0 $ < .-1
. $ $ ºÁ¯ï £À°è PÀĽwzÀÝ ¦gÁåzÀÄ &gÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÄä PÉù£À°è £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀ®Æ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉý DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ vÀªÀÄä u O8 q r A2 vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. .gÁå &$$ 9
v 4 B c)n w0 G T =) 3 ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ «rAiÉÆà C¥ï¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
20-02-2024 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀZÀgÀgÁzÀ DgÉÆæ-2, 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀ
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgɬĹPÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀÄ£ÀªÉÇ°¹, DgÉÆæ-2
gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ v 4 B SÁvɬÄAzÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÆøïÖ ªÀÄrzÀÝ «rAiÉÆÃ
¥sÉÆqÉƪÀ£ÀÄß C½¸À¸À(r°Ãmï ªÀiÁr¹), £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ L-¥sÉÆãï£À UÁå®j¬ÄAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ
«rAiÉÆà ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß r°Ãmï ªÀiÁr¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ-3 gÀªÀjUÉ
ºÉý ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ gÀÆ 2 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj
PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁV PÀ®A:8 ¥ÉÆÃPÉÆìà DPïÖ & 354(J), 204, 214 ¸À»vÀ 37 L¦¹ Cr
²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
< .-
.-2 CgÀÄuï ªÉÊ.JA:
¦gÁåzÀÄ &gÀ$ 9 v 4 B c)n w0 G T =) 3 4 I : *
ckM z R& £ÀA $ ? & : 20-02-2024 $ < .-2 $ $ < .-1 $ $
• ( < .-3 ,4$ ? .gÁå &$$0 ` , & W 0`
WZ c $0 ` < .-1 $ $ ¦gÁå &$$ 0•
¦gÁå &$$ v 4 B H&7 s c $ 6 R& : * / S 0` c
( w R& ). 0 $ c $ - †£À &= >s A : * / S 0`
w R& 0 $ < .-1 $ $ < ‡ 7 < .-3 $ $ ts ¦gÁå
&$ & /1 U $ > $ . 2 o 0! A2 0 ` F
< .!ˆ # ? [ > T = G a&@X&@ : 204, 214 b 37 . c /Š&AZ
c &^] @$ 7&, .
< .-
.-3 $ 1‹- .M w $" + =:
=:
¦gÁåzÀÄ &gÀ$ 9 v 4 B c)n w0 G T =) 3 4 I : *
ckM z R& $ ? & : 20-02-2024 $ < .-1 $ $ • (
< .-3 , < .-4 $ $ [&\-25 J ‹ $ ? .X&Z &$$
J @, < .-2 $ ? [ > ¦gÁå &$$0 ` , & W 0` WZ
c $0 ` 9 )&>0 G < .-1 $ $ ¦gÁåzÀÄ &gÀ$ 0•
20
¦gÁåzÀÄ &gÀ$ v 4 B H&7 s c $ 6 R& + : * / S 0` c
( w R& ), c $ - †£À &= >s A : * / S 0` w
R&D A > 0 $< .-1 $ $ < ‡ 7 ¦gÁåzÀÄ &$ & U$ >
$ 2 o 0! A2 0 ` 8 F < .!ˆ # ? [ > T = G a&@X&@ : 204,
214 0b 37 . c /Š&AZ c &^] @$ 7&, .
< .-
.-4 f. >[&qi O† M w ! &^$ =
¦gÁåzÀÄ &gÀ$ 9 v 4 B c)n w0 G T =) 3 4 I : *
ckM z R& $ ? & : 20-02-2024 $ < .-1 $ $ • (
< .-4 , < .-3 $ $ [&\-25 J ‹ $ ? .X&Z &$$
J @, < .-2 $ ? [ > ¦gÁå &$$0 ` , & W 0` WZ
c $0 ` 9 )&>0 G , & W 0` WZ c $0 ` 9 )&>0 G < .-
1$ $ .X&Z &$$ 0• .X&Z &$$ v 4 B H&7 s
c $ 6 R& + : * / S 0` c ( w R& ), c $ - †0
&= >s A: * / S 0` w R&D A > 0 $< .-1 $ $
< ‡ 7 < .-3 $ $ t s ¦gÁåzÀÄ &$ & /1 U$ > $ .2
o 0! A2 0 ` ) F < .!ˆ # ? [ > T = G a&@X&@ : 204, 214
b 37 . c /Š&AZ c &^] @$ 7&, ."
(Emphasis added)
On filing of the final report, the concerned Court takes cognizance
of the offences against the petitioner and others in the companion
petition and registers Spl.C.C.No.1283 of 2024. The order of taking
cognizance reads as follows:
"04-07-2024
Case called out. Learned Special Public Prosecutor
present.
21
Heard and perused the office note and also perused the
police report and the documents submitted along with the police
report including complaint, FIR, statements of witnesses and
the documents.
On perusal of police report and documents produced
along with police, there are prima facie material placed records
so as to proceed against the accused and also to issue process
against the accused.
Therefore, on being satisfied with prima facie
materials placed records, exercising the powers U/s
190(1) (b) r/w Section 193 of CrPC, cognizance is taken
for the offences punishable Under Section 8 of POCSO
Act, 2012, Section 354(A), 204 and 214 r/w Sec.37 of
IPC.
Office is directed to register this case as Special
C.c. in criminal register.
Office to attend regarding compliance U/s 35(1) of
POCSO Act i.e., securing statement U/s 164 of CrPC,
Medical report, FSL Report, Property from the
complainant Police.
Issue summons to the accused persons R/by
15-07-2024."
(Emphasis added)
The learned Judge notices that he has perused the records and
documents and finds that there are prima facie materials against
the petitioners in all these cases and registers the case as Special
C.C and issues summons. While so ordering, the Court observes
that office to attend regarding compliance with Section 35(1) of the
22
POCSO Act, securing statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.,
medical report, FSL report and property from the complainant
police.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner takes this
Court through several statements of witnesses to contend that
those witnesses whom the prosecution itself has examined, all
speak in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, those statements have
to be looked into, and the proceedings be obliterated against the
petitioner. The statements on which he would seek to place reliance
upon are as follows:
" !"#$ E5 ( . : 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ ,
-) . (
354(- &/ 0!$ %&' ( . . 84/2024)
[&\ &$$ J ) :-
/1 R&$ r / $2@ O† k / $2@, -J • -18813, 2 8,
.-.<_ ) 1, (e $ Zg, (e $ $[ ,, ;& &Kh S , !"#$ 0!$
J& ]& £ÀA.120. 10£Éà ¨ÁèPï, JA.J¸ï.©. ¯Éãï, ¹.J.Dgï PÉÃAzÀæ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ
¸ÀPÀð¯ï ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ;& &Kh S , !"#$ 0!$ H& :ˆ& & 40A 6,
0 $ 6 A ) 3 > 7&M G B, " &: ŽM G ( -9964818386.
¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-03-2024
) 1 • > !"#$ 0!$.
****
23
( 3 D :ˆ& G [&$ ( ]& ]&@$ 7 , 00` `/ .• ' a&
$ $ !TbfX&@$ 7&, . 00 F4'$ ! D 3 +, ( ! \" )&
( : ]&= ! R&D ,$ 7&, . -$D ! & /1 ±ÁA" 9
$! G ]&= ! R&D ,$ 7&, .
&0 2007 [& 0 G ‡ • i t ‡ • h X&@
+, !"#$ 0!$ ‡ • t ) 1 :a&! • > G Z =) 3
$? R& ) $ 7, . 2007 [& 8 !"#$ 0!$ ‡ • t ) 1
:a&! • > 2 8 G &zZ Z = 0 ` 8 Zb ,$ 7 , .0 &zZ
Z = G $ h&½ G Z =) 3 8* Ž , +, h&½ c0 [&$ <X& ?0
Z = 0 ` 8 Zb ,$ 7 , . 00 J& R&0= R&Ž l= 1!ˆ&
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& t& gïì )&M 8 ^ "@> G &zZ
Z =) 3 8* Ž ,+ 2018 [& 8 /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& ]&
t& gïì )&M 8 ^ "@> G $ h& c0 [&$ <X& ?0 Z = 0`
8 Zb ,$ 7 , .
£Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02-02-2024 $ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀgÉÃqï ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& t& gïì )&M 8 ^ "@> G &zZ 2
¥Á Z =PÉÌ ! c R&$ 11-00 ! S J&K &@ +, R&$ 11-15
! S G l= 1!ˆ& /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 ` a R&D
R&$ d£À$ !"V J&K> +, c $ G d4' J ! , c $ u 7 c $ !"V
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 ` a R&D 4 ? +$ . <! /1 .O.- . P$ r
$ $ !† R&=† < /1 < &^=$ > c $0 ` 7 > d" OD - ) 0.
<! /1 .< &^=$ $ d" ©qÀÄ JAzÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ 0 9 &zZ -" G + ¥ÀÄ , G
8 9 J $0 ` &l 8ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ «¼Á¸ÀªÉãÀÄ JAzÀÄ ) 0 . <! < J !
00` J $ / ( !Q? 4 ? + JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ
G d - 4 ) D < A !0 , c $ !"V d"!t ©56$ 7 , .
0 $ R&$ 20 8iY!" 0 $<J ! ,c $ !"V J $!t J $.
¥ÀÄ0-- R&$ 20 8iY 0 $ J $!t 4 $ 7 , d" J ! - $ <!
&0 /1 .< &^=$ > c $0 ` 7 > d" OD - ) 0 . <!
/1 .< &^=$ $ d" OD - $ &0 c $ !"0 ` d" OS 60 . 0 $ R&$
10-15 8iY!" G J $!t J $. < < J ! , c $ !"V d"!t
24
J &! d" ˜ &s - 4 00 ,$ ? G. c $ J $!t 4 &!
A 00` u 7 ˜00 ` R& & $ ? G.
0 $ ? & :20/02/2024 $ Q 08-00 ! S s & 1 08-00
! S ªÀ A! Z = G &zZ Z = 8 Zb $ 7 , . &0 Z =
8 Zb ,$ ]& Q ™&=A` 2 ! S 0 $ &KW =W,X& /1 .$ 1‹ $ $
, >[&qi $ $ !ˆ # ? $ 1 ‹ $ $ )&>0 G ? & : 02-02-2024 $
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 ` a R&D 4 ? + -0 ` J ! ,
c $ !"V 4 ?+ + &0 < J ! 0 ` /1 .O.- . P$ r '$ $ d"
OD t ? + <! /1 .$ 1 ‹ $ $ d" OD 7 J +> /1 .$ 1‹ $ $
, >[&qi $ $ !ˆ # ? d"!t O 6 + c $ !"V ) "@0 [ _
H& $ J @$ 7&, . R&$ c^Z ! S 0 $ /1 .$ 1‹ ,
>[&qi $ $ !ˆ # ? -0 ` J ! ,c $ !"V J $!t 4 ? +,
/1 .$ 1‹ $ $ 0 9 )&>0 G F $0 ` ) D J ! - c $ t š _|
J $ . c $ 7 t š _ c $ !"0 ` )&>0 G > ) D J $!t J $
$ 1 ‹$ $ 0-- d" J $. < F , L0 ?0!" G R&^= !" G
1[&]&! ,$ :Y ? ?+ -0 ` J ! ,c $ !"V
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 ` a R&D ^ "@> 4 &!
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ c0 L ]&@ Z &+ $ 8 $ 0`
) $ 7, . '< &0 /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ w4 &zZ
Z = 8 Zb , +> d" ˜0 0t s - 4 4 Q 00 ,$ ? G.
›? DM&@ >s .
!"#$ 8 E5 ( . . 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ ,
-) ¦¹ (
354(- &/ 0!$ %&' ( . : 84/2024)
J ) :-
/1 R&$ r / $2@ O† r / $2@, -J • -18813, 2
8, .-.<_ ) 1, (e $ Zg, (e $ $[ ,, ;& &Kh S , !"#$
0!$. J&° ]& 0 .120, 10 &GB, - .- .O M †, .-.<_ ) 1, (e $
25
Zg, (e $ $[ ,, ;& &Kh S , !"#$ 0!$. H& :ˆ& & 40A 6,
0 $ 6, A ) 3 > 7&M G B, " &: ŽM G, ( -9964818386,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 24-06-2024
) 1 • > !"#$ 0!$
( 3 D :ˆ& G [&$ ( ]& ]&@$ 7 , . 00` ` /
• ' a& $ $ !TbfX&@$ 7&, . 00 F4'$ ! D 3 +, ( !
\" )& ( : ]&= ! R&D ,$ 7&, . -$D ! & /1 •& " 9
$! G ]&= ! R&D ,$ 7&, .
&0 2007 [& 0 G ‡ • i t ‡ • h X&@
+, !"#$ 0!$ ‡ • t ) 1 :a&! • > G Z =) 3
$? R& ) $ 7, . 2007 [& 8 !"#$ 0!$ ‡ • t ) 1
:a&! • > 2 ' 8 G &zZ Z = 0 ` 8 Zb ,$ 7 , .0 &zZ
Z = G $ h& G Z =) 3 8* Ž , +, h& c0 [&$ <X& ?0
Z = 0 ` 8 Zb ,$ 7 , .' 00 J& R&0= R&Ž l= 1!ˆ&
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& t& gïì )&M 8 ^ "@> G &zZ
Z =) 3 8* Ž +. 2018 [& 8 /1 .O.- . AiÀÄÆ$ r $ $ 8]& ]&
t& Z )&M 8 ^ "@> G $ h&ˆ c0 [&$ <X& ?0 Z = 0`
8 Zb ,$ 7 , .
&0 ? & 02-02-2024 $ &0 h z @ ) D /1 O. -
P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& t& gïì )&M 8 ^ "@> G &zZ 2 h&½
Z = ¨ÉÃUÀ£É c R&$ 11-00 ! S J&K &@ +, R&$ 11-15 ! S
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæ!ˆ& /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 ` a R&D
- ?0 7 ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ [&J 4$ X& 4 $ & d"
OD L ]&@ c $ !" J $0 ` 4 ) "Vp7 , ] , J $ 0 ` 0 ?
DM c $ !"0 ` [&J 4$ d" OD 7 , ] .
? & : 02.02.2024 $ 11.15 ! S /1 U J&! c $
!"0 ` O - P$ r$ $ d" J $. 0 $ /]&0
!D $ $ $ 4 ? + c $0 ` O - P$ r$ $ d" 11.35
"Vb ) 6$ 7 , . & Z = 8 Zb -" G X& ! X&$ F$ ? G
26
J& &@ & :f5_ 4 B0 G 0` 0 ? ]&! 0 9 ) e0 G$ ]&•0 `
0`0 ? 7, ].
( 3 D U$ $ © - P$ r$ ( M 1 $2 0 `
&l $ :Y 0 $ 00` Redmi ( eg œ † 0 G < :Ž5_ >K 6_
4B 0 ) ¥ÀÄ5!" œ S c0 ` 7 ) $ 7, . 00` ( eg œ †c0 `
8H J&K$ 7, .
›? DM&@ >s .
!"#$ E5 ( . : 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ , -)
354(-
. ( &/ 0!$ %&' ( . : 84/2024)
[&\™&$$ J ) :-
/1 <0 & &^= ) .., O† M w 56 2 )& &^=, 48 YZ, -J • 797,
-<_ ) 1, (e $ $[ ,, !"#$ , ]& : 0 .9, c 1( $ M •w,
/1 ^_! Dž $[ ,, ) h&"=, ) > !"#$ -560060 ( eg 0 : 9844732583.
q Ÿ$ 0 $ , J $"! G c ; 0 $ 7& G & 0!$ ŽM G..
¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.03.2024
, !"#$ .
&0 ( 3 D :ˆ& G ˆ 7. YZ! 00` q G 5 4
( ]& ]&@$ 7 , . 00 K & < &^= - 4 d4' ! +F Ž > U 3
[ i 6_0 G ' ]&= ! R&D ,$ 7&,ˆ . 00` ` • ' a& Ž.F. H& @ •&M G •_
<@ ) R&D ,$ 7&, . 0 9 8^0 &@ +, 0 9 7&s 0 9 u 7 G*
]& ]&@$ 7&, .
&0 1997 [& 0 G FM&H G -<_ )&†CS 4g <@
+, 00` 4 &? $ @ 0 $ -<_ ,$ E5 G 10
YZ!" ' )& Z = 8 Zb $ 7 , .0 $ -<_ ) 1 G 5 YZ!" )& Z =
8 Zb $ 7 , . 2012 [& 8 2019 [& 0 O -- -¡ & :Ž †C
0 G Z = 8 Zb $ 7 , . 2019 [& 8 -<_ ) 1 G Z =
8 Zb ,$ ]& Q R&0= l= 1!" • >s 00`0 ` c ?0 l=
1!ˆ& O.- . P$ r $ $ !†R&=† <@ R& ) "p
27
< ,$ • > 1 4 ? + c $ ( < ,$ • >s -<_
) 1) 3 < ‡ 1 $]&8 ) +$ ( 00`0 ` R&0= ., -<_) 1
[&J 4$ Z = h& wZ ¤Ãr c ?0 l= 1!ˆ& P$ r $ $ 4
Z =) 3 $? R& ) "p "Vb ) 6 + c ?8 F ?0 R&0= O.- .
P$¥Àà $ $ 4 !† R&=† <@ Z = 8 Zb ,$ 7 , .
&0 ? & : ? & :25-03-2024 $ E5 :• Y :;&$'&
:a&! h&I o & /1 . T¢£ - .u $ $ 00 :;&$' J&K &!
00 c0 ` 8 +' c $ 7 &0 ?0 • > :• Y
:;&$'& «¨sÁUÀzÀ gÀÆA £ÀA.115 $ G 8H&I)&>!" J&K &@ +,
8H&I)&>!"V PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E5 ( . : 09/2024 8
PÉÆì )&*+ , 354(J) L¦¹ ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ
ªÉÆ.¸ÀA:84/2024 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß )" D 7
8 D ,$ 7 , .
[&R&0=]&@ [&J 4$ !† R&=† Z =) 3 3 K0 ]&@ + h&
(M Z = 8 Zb 7 , ] . c $ 7 00 ? & : 02.02.2024 $ $ Q
08-00 ! S s & 1 08-00 ! S A! Z = ]&@ +, &0
c $ 7 P$ r [&J 4$ G Z = G &+! P$ r [&J 4$ " Q
R&$ 11-15 ! S G @ ) D J $!t 4 ?$ 7&, . < G
7& U , c $ !"V c $ u 7 G 1 Z$ E c^=o &
/]&0 !D _ - 4 $ w0 8 +$ . <! P$¥Àà
[&J 4$ <; 4 c $0 ` &zZ c $0 ` d" "Vb ) - J
J&g0 G ) D$ . <! U. cªÀ$ !"V , /]&0
!D _ $ $ 4 J&g0 G ) D$ . U$ $ 0` !"
c7&=;&$ ) UÉ 4 I 7 ˆ 9 YZ! cM &D ,$ 7 , . F0 ` &=
W3 G. J&! S1 U 4 ^ 7 5 [&:$ ) A2 4$ )
J "V) "Vp , +$ . <! [&J 4$ g R& 3 K0 3 $ J $ . <!
[&J 4$ G cD J& & ¤- 4 $ 3 7& U
, c $ !"V , /]&0 !D _$ > 8 $. &0 < G
&@ 4 8 +0 . ) 56 ¤ d"!t ¸ÉÖÃ_ ) A ,4$ J&g0 &@ G
8 +0 . c G$ nà ,$ ]&! U $ $ 9 ) !" :;&$
R& &D , + <! [&J 4$ U$ > 8 9 [ =! c 0 ,8
28
00` ) eM& 1 ` R& , 8 - J U ,c $ !"0 ` J $!t
"Vb $ . <( M /]&0 !D _ $ $ X& <J&q0 1) ) D 4 ? +
c $ R&$ 10-15 8iY [&J 4$ u 7 R& & J $!t J $.
/]&0 !D $ $ $ J $!t J ! ,$ ]& Q : $• e J& a&
l D & $ / = $ $ , c $ u 7 4 K0 d"!t 4 $. c $
R&$ 15-20 8iY R& &D ,$ ]&! U $ $ 7, !"
u 7 4 00 7 ,(9 [&J 4$0 ` a R&D ) ) $ . c )3 &0
d [&> R& (M 7 , OD ? G [&J 4$0 ` ) J "V7 ,
J $!t Fj - J "Vb 0. 0 $ [&J 4> U ,
!"V 90 ` a R&D 7, 4 ? &+ - J &! [&J 4$ < ,
"Vb - J $ . <! $ / = , c $ u 7 F + 4 K0$ J $!t
4 $ . <! U , !"V d" 4 [&J 4$ 4 ˜$ ^£8 G
R& &D , +$ . <! &0 ¸Àé®à ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÁºÉçgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß
ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄEzÀÝ ºÁUÉ ZÉ£ÁßV N¢¸ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ R&D 7 ,
J "V , +$ . <! U 00` ) ! ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ J¸ïLn <! )
A¥ R& ) "V , +$ . <! [&J 4$ 00 .) .²ªÀPÀĪÀÄgï gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÉÆãï p
- J $ . <! &0 .) . / R&_ $ $ !†R&=† ' ¥ÉƆ R& c $
† > ¦ R&D G. 7 , [&J 4$ 00 i Y0_ ¥ÉÆÆ
- J +, &0 i Y0gï [&J 4> 00` 0 4_8 † R&
i Y0_ [&J 4$ † > ¦ R& (M P$ r [&J 4> †
) S 60 . P$ r [&J 4$ i Y0_ $ > 80 G J 2 § !"V
,c $ !"V 4$ 7&, c $ Ž †) c > q r J& R&
&0 [&R&0=]&@ X&>! œ † R& ' J "M&G F > J& R& - J
† w R& 00 ) 56$ . <! P$ r [&J 4$ U $ >
i Y_ <¨ J @ X&0 © $ $0 ` a R& ˜ &s - †
R& J c J $ . <! 7& U8 9 † 0 4_ ) - ) $.
<! [&J 4$ 00 † 0 4_ ) D - J + &0 [&J 4$ 7348998962
œ † 0 4_0 ` ) S 60 . <! U$ $ † 0 4_ 4 ) D 8 9
J $ < &^=0 c ) $ . <! &0 ) 6 0 4_ † R& - N6
J 0 . <! c $ !ˆ # ? ]& J $. < †0 ` h& Z = G$
4' ?!ˆ& & 3 K0$ * @ 7, ].
29
0 $? & : 05.02.2024 $ A 00 Q 08-00 ! S s & 1 08-
00 ! S A! Z = ]&@ +, &0 c $ 7 P$ r $ $
G Z = G &+! ™&=A` R&$ 12-00 ! S U, c $ !"V
c $ u 7 d4' =W, 4 $ . < ?0 'i U F . K0 u& , F + > c $ ) "!qÉ
A G , +$ . i U @ ( M [&J 4$0 ` R&D 4 ? +
[& ZK8 $0 ` d"!t ? +, R&$ 12-50 > 1-00 ! S d" U
c $ !"V J&! F `4' =W, d" 4 [&J 4$ A ,$ R&$ d
8iY R& & $ . <! &0 &@ 4 * 8 +0 . 0 $ [&J 4$ 00
S c > 0 9u 7 œS 7 S 7@ - J +, U
$ $ c $ ( eg0 ` 00` ) e ) 56$ . &0 [&J 4$ u 7 F + U
c $ !"V J&! c $ u 7 F + F `4'0 ` [ > S 7 ( eg0 `
]& U $ > ) S 60 . 0 $c G$ ]& J @$ 7&, .
? & : 17.02.2024 $ 00` D = F$ G < ?0 $: 1† - 4 $
[&J 4$ !† R&=† <@ A! Z = 8 Zb +$ .
›? DM&@ >s ."
The said witness is also questioned in a questionnaire format.
Those questions and answers read as follows:
" 1•&` !"V
1. 8 9 J $ C, 8 9 :ˆ& , ( eg 0 4_ , 8 9 W$
>• R& ) p?
c0 &$^= ) ... 48 YZ, 0 .9, c 1( PÀÄnÃ$A 4t& ' /1 ^$! Dž A ,$,
) h&"=, ) >, !"#$ - 560 060 9844732583, &0 AHC <@
)&Z> [ ] G$ vÉÛÃ .
2. 8 X& =! G¢ÝÃ>? -Y 6 YZ! =! G¢ Ý Ã j ?
&0 FM&H G AHC <@ =! G$ 7 . R&$ 27
YZ! =! G$ 7 , .
30
3. ? & : 02.02.2024 $ 8 Z = G F?+ &?
? & 02.02.2024 $ £Áä0= /1 O.- . P$ r0 $ !† R&=†
<@ A!®Ä Z = 8 Zb ,zÝÉ .
4. < ?0 . gÁå &$ & U , c $ !"V /1 © - .
P$ r$ $ 4 ? +g Á ? R&$ -Y 6 ! S 4 ? +$ ?
? & :02.02.2024 $ vÁ U , c $ !"V /1 B.S.
P$ r0 $ R&$ 11.15 $ 0 $ 4 J $ )& ,+
/]&0 zï !D $ $ $ A [&J 4$0` R&D c $ 3 G 8
)& , +$ .
5. vÀ Uï$ $ , c 6 4 $ X&$ X&$ - G - G
) D$ : > ?
7&¹AUï , c $ !" u 7 /]&0 zï !D $ gÀ $ A
< 12 1) 8 D 4 ? +$ . $ K0 0 4 s u 7 G*
4 J&g 0 G [&J 4$ $ ) "Vp l= < 0 3 G
$ K0 ) "Vp [ v& (M [&J 4$ 3) 3 7&¹AUï,
ªÀĪÀÄvÁ¹AUï 3) 3 7& Uï$ $ !"V, c $ ªÀÄUÀ¼À 3) 3 /]&0
!D gï$ $ ) D$ .
6. c $ 4 &! G X& & $ F + &?
c $ 4 &! G cD & &! &K , c87& , J ‹ ,
J& & A0 , ¤, 8]&ZA & 1? k $ $ ,
&zZ R&$ , F G$ F +gÀÄ.
7. c 6 X& & $ 4 ? + &? c $ >• ¤ªÀÄUÉ F X&?
7& U ,c $ !"V 4 G* /]&0 zï !qÀÆgï$ $
A 4 )& , +$ , 0 $ $ u 7 G* J&g 4
) D$ /]&0 zï !qÀÆgï$ $ )& Z8$ 1 Z$ E
c^=o X& & $ < 12 1) !"0 ` ) D 4 &! + .
8. < G /1 © - P$ r$ $ 4' ?!"V - G +$ ?
31
< G J& ¤ J&g J ?) $ h&=[ ¤ 0 ºÁ¯ï£À
&@ 0 G 8 .+ &! &K , c87&, J ‹ cD ) R&D , +$ .
A0 :•&1 t [ M&G_ 0 G + 8]&ZA & 1? k $ $
8 ZA' b `M G ) '! ›t&D , +$ . &zZ
R&$ w 4 F +$ . &0 [&J 4$ J& 0 G + D 0) 3 2§"7
$ G8 +.
9. 7& U , c $ !"V /1 O - P$ r$ $ 4 &!
c $ œS 7 ) DgÁ, c 6 4 X& & $ œS
7 ) D &? œ S 7 ( eg , 0. X&?
02.02.2024 $ 7& U , c $ !"V 8 ( eg 0 G
7&s !¼ÀÄ [&J 4$ u 7 8 7&! œ S 7 ) 6$ 7 , . 0 $
!qÀÆgï $ $ < 12 1) 0` [&J 4jUÉ ) D ]&! œS
7 ?$ 7 , . F & 0 $ 7& U , c $ !"V 7,
05.02.2024$ G &0 A! Z = G &+! d4' =W, u 7 4 ? + c $
J $D G [&J 4> œS ) :0 &! [&J 4$
œS 7 7@ - $ <! 7& U , c $ !"V c $ u 7
4 ? + =W,. $ K0 [&J 4$ u 7 8 œS 0 ` 7 ?$ 7 ,
02.02.24 $ R&$ 11:20 jAzÀ 12:30 gÀ M¼ÀUÉ 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12:45 > 1:30 d" F$4A ."
10. Uï$ $ !"V J& 0 G c®èzÉà X& & $ ) uÉ
c«]& $ ªÀiï UÉ < ?0 X& 6 & $ J @ +gÁ?
7& U ,c $ !"V w0 4 s J&g 4 [&J 4$ 4
R& & J $ J ! ! /]&0 © !qÀÆgï$ $ A
u 7 G +gÀÄ. $ K0$ 4 J ! ! 00` tÚ¼ÀvÉ G* F +$ .
$ K0 J&¯ï ©lÄÖ X& ) '! J @$ ? Gc
?0 7 ,(9 7& U ,c $ !"V 4 &! A [&J 4$0 `
J&¯ï£À°è* a R& R& & ) D J @$ 7&, . 2 &> 4 &!
A 7&s, !"V F4'$ 00` 2§"7 $ G* F +$ .
32
11. 8 U , c $ !"V /1 O.- . P$ r$ $ 4
J ! ! 8 - G?+ >? c $ R& &D 0`8 ?+ &?
? & 02.02.2024 $ 7& U , c $ !"V ( &>
4 &! /]&0 © !qÀÆgïgÀ $ u 7 G 4 ?$ 7&, 2£Éà ¨Áj c ?0
4 &! 7&s !"N 6 4 ?$ 7&, . -$qÀÆ jZ!" G &0 [&J 4$
, 7&s, !"V , /]&0 © !D _ F G$ tÚ¼ÀvÉ $ G
FzÉÝ0 . c $ R& &D c rY6]&@ ) ,zÀÄÝ 7& U$ $ !"
(M c $ 4 I c7&=;&$ R& 4 Q , S1 U 5000 ) A2
4$ 4 Q R& &D 7&, SIT ) ) "V7&, 00` !" > - 00`
!"0 `
,$ ?
- J "V , +$ 00 9 YZ! &= ¹PÀÌ®è J®ègÀ
&@ cM , + , )& 00` !" «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ; B R& ) p-
J "V , +$ . [&J 4$ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀPÉÌ ¤0` !"V 00` ( 9!"V
F +J& ; &`@ ›? ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É - J +0 ` ) ) + ."
12. U , c $ !"V 7, ˜ & $ c ?0 /1 O -
P$ r$ $ 4 zÉÆÝzÀ &? R&$ -Y 6 c $ c G F +$ ?
c $ <! R& & $ 8 ? X&? < G8 - G F?+ >?
7& U ,c $ !"V c ?0 2 &> 4 ? +$ ( &>
4 &! 00` !"0 ` c &= ]&@ - ˆ 9 YZ! - G$
&@ cM , + &= W3 G )& ; B R& ) p -
J "V , +$ . F $ 2 &> 4 &! 7, S1 U :Y
R& &D - J $ . <! [&J 4$0 ` ) J&¯ï "Vb ) mÉÖ.
(M J b `M G [&J 4$ , 80` !"V 00` ( 9!"V F + J&
; &`@ ›? J& R&D 7 , . - J $ A SIT - A¥
R&D , +$ <! [&J 4$ /1 ) / R&_ R&D J $ c $
!† R&=† R& c $ q > G, 0 $ iY0_ $ >
gÉ R&D J R& ) S6 [&J 4$ 0 9 /)&> $ $
)&0 80 G J& R& - ) > $,2 &> 4 &! R&$ 15
33
8iY R& & ) D J $ G &0 7& U c $
!"V , [&J 4$ $ 2§"7 $ G F +0 .
13. 7& U , c $ !"V R&$ -Y 6 ! S /1 O -
P$ r$ $ s J $5$ ? c $ J 0 $ X& & $
c $ 4 ? + &?
02.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ 7& U , c $ !"V 2£Éà &> 4
J $S&! R&$ 12:30 ! S <@$4A zÀÄ. c $ J 0 $ c $ 2
&> 4 ? &+!M 4 ? + t&ll 8 $¤ $ $ J&¯ïUÉ J ?) + h&=[ Ž0 G
+$ F $ J 0 $ t&ll 8 $¤ $ $ [&J 4> F u o† ) 56$
[&J 4> 82 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀi¸ÁìVzÀÄÝ Q« >X&@ ) ? G ) e!"V &
0D ! ,] B.P.. ¸ÀÄ!_ F7&=? SÁsM ! &@ 3 J , R&7 1 F u o£ï!"0 `
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ EzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ªÁgÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ E£ï¸ÀÄ°£ï EAeÉPÀë£ï £À£ÀÄß t& 6_
gÀªÀgÉà 4 ) D 7&, . DUÉÎ < ªÁ$ F u o00 ` t&ll 8 $¤ $ $ 4
) 56J $.
& 4 ?$ 7 ,
¸À»/- "
One Sri J.S.Manoj, CW-13 tenders his statement on 25-03-2024
and was also questioned by the Investigating Officer. The statement
tendered and the questions so asked read as follows:
!"#$ E5 ( . : 09/
09/2024 8 ¥ÉÆPÉÆìà )&*+ , 354(
354(-) .
( &/ 0!$ %&f ( . : 84/2024)
[&\ &$$ J ) :-
/1 . ¤.u .- . O† / ‡ _. u .-†. eÁ -d 3 !,
/1 .O.- . P$ r, R&Ž l= 1!"V, $ $ 8]& ) , ) &¡
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& , 0 .381 ^ "@>, 6 cDž$[ ,, 80 c $[ ,, <_.- .:
2 A , t& gïì )&M 8. !"#$ 0!$, H& , Ž ` 0A p, b>[&] J 4 ,
•0` & 0 562 7&M G B, J& 0 f¯Éè, ªÉÆ -7349504930.
? & : 25-03-2024
!"#$ 0!$
*****
34
8H&I)&>!"V :;&$' J&K &! 7 8 0 ( ?0
:;&$' J&K &@$ 7 , . &0 ( 3 D :ˆ& G J& R&0= R&Ž l=
1!ˆ& /1 .O.-†. P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& t& gïì )&M 8 "@> G
cD ) J& &@ ) R& ) D c G* ]& R& ) $ 7, . &0
00` 7&s d4' ! &@ +, 00` 7&s $ !"V 00` q Ÿ>0 G
]& R& ) $ 7&, .
&0 2020 [& 0 G &Z5 c ?0 l= 1!ˆ&@ +
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& t& gïì )&M 8 ^ "@> G S 5g
˜u 8C H& $ )3 [ >) $ 7, . /1 .O.- . P$ r l=
1!" A +s )" F 0 $ S 5g ˜u 8C )&=† g <@$ , . < 0 $
&0 c G >• ? 0` > $ 7, .
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 8]& ]& G0 Q6> ™&=A` 2 J&!
u 5 > & 1 10 ! S -$D h& ) :$ , . /1 .O.- . P$ r
$ $0 ` a R&D 4$ !2=$ , [& ZK8 $ F =W,! c $ G )&¨
J&! !"0 ` ) D ) R&D ,$ 7 , .
c G /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 1 ?0 , )&¨, mÁå4M w, Ÿ5
e0 ?0 ?0•>!"0 ` ) "Vp ,$ 7 , . /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 ` a
R&D ? & R&$ K0!"V 4$ ,$ 7&, .
? & : 02-02-2024 $ &0 e0 ?0 Z =) 3 J&K &@ +0 . " Q
R&$ 10-45 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ $ 8 t e8 U S 4g
4 $ <! &0 CªÀjUÉ wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $
R& J&g0 G PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß PÉ®¸À 0 ` R&D , + q r
G g R& $ <! &0 J&g J @ &! c G $ K0 6 F +$
c $ G 1 ! D 1 J ! F `4' AD@ F +$ c $ !"V [ v& (M
) +$ . <! R&$ 11-30 > 11-45 ! S ]&@ , <!
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ 00 F > 7 ) D & - $ &0 <s
- $ K0) 3 7 ) D J @ ) S 60 . c $ !"V R&$
c^Z! S $:! R& &D , +$ c $ !"V - + J 0 $ &0 ' r!"0 `
7 ) D J @ Pï0 G 7 ˆ FS 60 . X& & $ : 5gïì 4 &! Dž $
)&¨ ) D - &0 c«]& A0 X& & $ d4'$ 4 : 5gïì
35
c«]& )&¨ ) D 7 , ] . F G]& & d"!t t e8 U S 4g J&g0 G
) $ 7, ]. Dž $ J " J $ c $ R& &D -") 3 & !"V
J ! ? G. c $ 7 ? & : 05.02.2024 $ & & K0 : 5gïì )&¨
) 6 + 7& U , c $ !"V 4 4 Q 0 ,$ ? G J&!
F > & < ?0 X& )&¨ 8 $ ? .G
? & : 17.02.2024 $ &0 Q R&$ 10-00 ! S /1 P$ r
[&J 4$ !ˆ& &9 (D $ $ ]& :$ F t& gïì )&M 8 ] eY§:
[&-0 a&! ] eY§: [ r D_ ch&wZ ( w J @ + c $ J + ) !"0 `
R& ) D cM G F + ™&=A` c G* Ÿ5 R& ) D 0 $ R&$ 3-00 ! S
]& P$ r [&J 4$ 4 [ G_0 G$ 6 $ 0 G :•&1
t ) D0 . 0 $ u R&$ 5-00 ! S ) )3 J 0 . < ?0 > 7&
U ,c $ !"V $ $ !"V 4 ?$ 4 Q 00 ,$ ? G. ? & : 02.02.2024
$ [&J 4$ 4 &! c > ) 56 + O56 0 $ c $0 ` [&J 4$
G &0 $ ? G.
DzÀgÉ F , L0 ?0!" G R&^= !" G 1[&]&! ,$ :Y ?
?+ -0 ` J !¸ÀÄ , c $ !"V /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $0 `
a R&D ^ "@> 4 &! /1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ c0 L ]&@
Z & $ 8 $ 0` ) $ 7, . < &0
/1 .O.- . P$ r $ $ -0 ` J ! , c $ !"V 4 &!
c $ !"V ˜0 R& & $ c G ˜0 E5 0t s - 4 $ 4 Q 00 ,$ ? G.
›? DM&@ >s .
¥Àæ±ÁߪÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ
1. ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì, ¤ªÀÄä «¼Á¸À, ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï w½¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÄä QgÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁrPÉƽî?
ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï eÉ.J¸ï; 21 ªÀµÀð, f£ÉßãÀºÀ½î, »j¸ÁªÉ ºÉÆç½, ZÀ£ÀgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ f¯Éè ºÁ¸À£À 7349504930
£ÀªÀÄä PÉ®¸À nà PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ & Hl ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁºÉçjUÉ ªÀiÁvÉæ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ & EUÉ
§AzÀªÀjUÉ nà PÁ¦ü & ¹éÃmï PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ »ÃUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
2. ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è¢ÝÃj? JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ F GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è¢ÝÃj?
£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÁV PÀ¼ÉzÀ 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
3. ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è E¢ÝÃgÁ?
36
ºËzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è EzÉÝ.
4. D ¢£À ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ
©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ UÀAmÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ?
ºËzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï & CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ
eÉÆvÉUÉ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 11.15gÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ §A¢ÝzÀgÀÄ.
5. ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÉÆnÖUÉ §AzÀ G½zÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ J°è J°è
PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ «ªÀj¹?
¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ PÀĽvÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ MAn D¸À£ÀzÀ ¥ÀPÀÌ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À PÀĽvÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ zÉÆqÀØ
¸Áé¥À EzÀÄÝ, D zÉÆqÀØ ¸Áé¥ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌPÉ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ
¥ÀPÀÌPÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀPÀÌPÉÌ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ PÀĽvÀÄ
PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ.
6. CªÀgÀ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝgÁ?
CªÀgÀÄ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¤ÃvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀgÁeï ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§â
CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀĺÉñï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæ¢Ã¥ï, ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀÄ, UÁqïð
ªÀiÁgÀÄw, UÀ£ïªÉÄ£ï DgÁzsÁå EµÀÄÖ d£À ¸ÀºÀ EzÉݪÀÅ.
7. CªÀgÉÆnÖUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? CªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ EzÉAiÀiÁ?
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ ¹AUï CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ²ªÀ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ
§A¢zÀÝÀgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è EªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÀt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀzÉ ¥ÀzÉ
§gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÀvÀð ¸ÀAWÀzÀ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ---
--£É£À¦zÀ
8. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æà ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ CAUÀ gÀPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
J°èzÀÝgÀÄ?
UÁqïÀð ªÀiÁgÀÄwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ MgÀUÉ UÉÃmï §½ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, UÁ£ï ªÉÄ£ï DgÁzsÀågÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÁºÉçgÀ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉUÉ PÁtĪÀAvÉ ¤AwgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ nà PÉÆlÄÖ ºÁ¯ïUÉ
ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ, ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è nà PÀ¥ï vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä C°èAiÉÄà ¤AwzÉÝ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï
gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ nà PÀ¥ï vÉUÉzÉ, £ÁUÀgÁeï & C¤ÃvÀ
CqÀÄUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝgÀÄ, ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀÄ gɸïÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÁVvÀÄÛ ºÁUÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è gɸïÖ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄzsÀå MªÉÆäªÉÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀÄ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ wAzÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄrzÀÄ ---
37
9. ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ¥Á¤ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝÃgÁ?
CAzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¯ï
£À°è PÀĽwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ ¨É¯ï ªÀiÁrØzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀ£É߯Áè £ÉÆÃrzÉ
¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ J®èjUÀÆ nà PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ nà vÀAzÀÄ ºÁ°£À°è
PÀĽzÀÝ CªÀgÉ®èjUÀÆ PÉÆmÉÖ nà PÀ¥ï vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ
¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉUÉ PÁtĪÀAvÉ ¤AvÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ nà PÀÄrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ
ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ nà PÀ¥ï vÉUÉzÉ.
10. ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ°£À°è C®èzÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ PÉÆÃuÉUÉ
CxÀªÁ gÀƪÀiïUÉ D ¢£À AiÀiÁgÉÆnÖUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÁ?
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¢£À ºÁ¯ï ©lÖgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀV£À
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ PÉÆÃuÉUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ºÁ¯ï£À°è §AzÀÄ PÀĽvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ¢AzÀ
ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉ zÀÆgÀzÀ°è EzÀÄÝ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É F ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À
ºÁ¯ï ©lÄÖ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉÆÃuÉUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÁºÉçjUÉ
82 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVzÀÄÝ CªÀjUÉ PÉÊUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀÄA§ £ÀqÀÄUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CªÀjUÉ ¯ÉÊmï & ¥Áå£ï
¹éZïUÀ¼ÀÄ qÁ¤AUï ºÁ¯ï CxÀªÁ E£ÁߪÀÅzÉà eÁUÀPÉÌ, PÉÆÃuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ
ªÉÆzÀ¯É PÀgÉzÀÄ ¯ÉÊmï & ¥sÁå£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ, D ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉÆÃuÉAiÀÄ, «ÄÃnAUï ºÁ¯ï qÉʤAUï ºÁ¯ï ¯ÉÊmï ¥sÁå£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀ®Ä
ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÀjAzÀ CAUÀgÀPÀëPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ
¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ PÉÆÃuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÆ CªÀgÀ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, »ÃUÁV
D ¢£À ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï or CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÁßUÀ° ºÁ¯ï ©lÄÖ E£ÁåªÀ
PÉÆÃuÉUÀÆ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, CAzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁ¯ï£À°èAiÉÄà ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.
11. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æà ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ
ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¤ÃªÀÅ J°è¢ÝÃj? CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÆÃr¢ÝÃgÁ?
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¢£À §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ CªÀgÀ
PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÉ. ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ ¨É¯ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ºÀÉÆÃzÁUÀ J®èjUÀÆ nà vÀgÀ®Ä w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ nà vÀAzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ ºÁ¯ïUÉ
ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è ¤AwzÉÝ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ
nà PÀ¥ïàUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ
E£ï«mÉõÀ£ï PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀqÀ®Ä ¤AvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀºÀ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ 2-3 d£À §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ ¨É¯ï CªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ
nà PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉýzÀgÀÄ CªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ nà PÉÆlÄÖ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ
¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è ¤AvÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ nà PÀ¥ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï & CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ ºÁ¯ï M¼ÀUÉ §A¢ÝzÀÝgÀÄ. nà PÀ¥ï ElÄÖ §AzÀÄ
PÀtÚ¼ÀvɬÄAzÀ zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÁÝUÀ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÄÀ SIT ºÉýzÀÄÝ PÉý¹vÀÄ
£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ.
38
12. ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ UÀAmÉUÉ ²æà ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ
ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlgÀÄ? CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÀUÉ
§A¢ÝzÀgÁ?
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ §AzÁUÀ 11.15 £ÀAvÀgÀ
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÁVvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30 ¤«ÄµÀ EzÀÄÝ ºÉÆÃzÀgÄÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ C®èAiÉÄà EzÀÝ
²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ E£ï«mÉõÀ£ï PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉÆgÀqÀĪÁUÀ ¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ
2-3 eÉÆvÉ §AzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀAiÀÄå ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ¤«ÄµÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ
F ªÀÄzsÉå qÁPÀÖgï ¤ÃgÀeï ¸ÁºÉçjUÉ ªÁgÀzÀ EeÉA¸ÀÌ£ï PÉÆqÀ®Ä §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ.
CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è PÀÄj¹zÉ. ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï & gÀªÀgÀ
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀAiÀÄå & CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀݪÀgÀÄ ºÁ¯ï £À°è
¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ.
13. ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ CzÉà ¢£À ²æÃ
©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢ÝzÀgÁ? ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ C°è
EzÀÝgÀÄ?
D ¢£À ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ MlÄÖ 2 ¨Áj §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ 11.15 £ÀAvÀgÀ
§A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. §AzÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ §½ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár nà PÀÄrzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ²ªÀ£ÀAzÀ
vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár E£ï«mÉõÀ£ï £À£ÀÄß ¸ÁºÉçjUÉ ¤Ãr ºÉÆgÀqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ
¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ 2-3 d£À §AzÀÝgÀÄ. ¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ
ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï & CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ §AzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ
CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ªÉÃ¼É qÁPÀÖgï ¤ÃgÀeïgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ EAeÉPÀë£ï£ÀÆß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
§A¢zÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è PÀÆj¹zÉÝ.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï & gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£Éà ¨Áj §AzÀÄ ºÁ¯ï£À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ¤«ÄµÀ
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ qÁPÀÖgï ¤ÃgÀeïgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¯ï §AzÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçjUÉ
ªÁgÀzÀ EAeÉPÀë£ï £À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ.
14. CªÀgÀÄ DUÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢¢AiÀiÁ? D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ J°è E¢Ýj?
CªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ C¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV PÉý¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÉý¸À°®è
DzÀgÉ SIT ªÀÄvÀÄÛ LzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ PÉÆÃn JA§ ¥ÀzÀ PÉý¹vÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁ¯ïUÉ
ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï £À°è ¤AwzÉÝ, 2£Éà ¨Áj D ¢£ÀªÉà §AzÁUÀ F ªÀiÁvÀÄ
ºÉýzÀÄÝ C¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV PÉý¹vÀÄÛ.
15. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ²æêÀÄw ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ
©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÉAiÀiÁ? CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ
AiÀiÁgÀzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀgÁ?
¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
£À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è.
39
16. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ²æà ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ? ¤ÃªÀÅ D
¢£À CªÀjUÉ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ ¥Á¤ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝgÁ?
05/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ JA¢£ÀAvÉ ¨É¼ÀîUÉ ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï ElÄÖ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀ£ïªÉÄ£ï w½¹zÀ
£ÀAvÀgÀ nà ¤ÃgÀÄ PÉÆlÄÖ VøÀgï & ¯ÉÊmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1 UÀAmÉ
£ÀAvÀgÀ dƸï PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ qÉʤAUï mÉç¯ïUÉ §AzÁUÀ wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
§r¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 05/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ §UÉÎ £É£À¥ÀÄ §gÀÄwÛ®è.
17. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ²æêÀÄw ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ²æà ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? CªÀgÉÆnÖUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀÝgÁ?
20/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è
£Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 5 UÀAmÉ AiÀĪÀgÉUÉ «±ÁæAw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝ.
18. D ¢£À CªÀgÀÄ J°è PÀĽwzÀÝgÀÄ? CªÀjUÉ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ ¥Á¤ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝgÁ? CªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ? CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÉAiÀiÁ?
20/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è CAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 5 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ «±ÁæAw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝ.
19. CªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¥Á¸ï ºÉÃUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¢zÉAiÀiÁ?
20/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀ §UÉÎ DUÀ° ºÉÆÃzÀ §UÉÎ
DUÀ° w½¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
20. ²æêÀÄw ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ²æà ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ
AiÀiÁªÁUÀ¯ÁzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀgÁ? AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÀt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ
PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj §A¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝÃ£É CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV
¸ÀªÀĸÉå EgÀĪÀªÀgÀAvÉ ªÀwð¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÁV £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸À®Ä
ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. CªÀgÀÄ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ.
¸À»/-
£Á£É §gÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
(ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï eÉ.J¸ï)
04-05-2024"
40
Yet another witness upon which the petitioner seeks to place heavy
reliance upon is of one Sri Shivananda Tagaduru. His statement is
as follows:
" .... .... ....
? & : 06.04.2024 $ [&\ &$ & /1 ./]&0 !D $ , /1 . J ‹
R&_ $ $0 ` :;&$' R& J ) 0` t ) $ , 0 $ > 1 $2 G
cR&0 , ) + ) ( eg † c0 ` > Š &@ -†.-¡.- .
! K &" "Vb $? 0` t ) $ , . ? & 12.04.2024 $ >
1 $2 G cR&0 , ) + d † , d :• ( eg †
!"0 ` > Š &@ -¡.- .-g. ]&" !"#$ $ > "Vb $? 0`
t ) $ , , 1 $2 --1 < .X& < . ]&±C •& gc0 `
-¡.- .-g.0 ] e²&8 ³$ , •$ o t 8 + • &(
cR&0 , R& 6 G 0 ? R&0= &=X& ) 3 8] ? ) $ , .
0 $ ? & :15.04.2024 $ 1 $2) 3 4 ? 7 T = 0t -" G 8 Zb
: 5gïì 4 B , D = >Ž 6_!"0 ` •$ o • &( cR&0 ,
) D R& 6 G 0 ? R&0= &=X& ) 3 8] ? ) + £ÀAvÀgÀ
CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ? & : 19.04.2024 $ > Š &@ -¡.- .-g. ]&" !"#$
gÀªÀjUÉ "Vb $? 0` t ) $ , .
? & : 06.04.2024 $ --1 < .s ]&±C [&= g c0 `
-¡.- .-g. ]&") 3 "Vb $? 0` t ) $ , . ? & : 06.05.2024
$ 1 $2 .X&Z &$ & /1 . 7& U , 17 YZ & Q
$ $0 ` :;&$' R& > $ J ) !"0 ` t ) $ , .? & :
08.05.2024 $ , [&\ &$ & /1 @ 7& J •.<_ $ $0 ` :;&$' R&
J ) 0` t ) $ , ? & : 15.05.2024 $ [&\ &$ & /1 . &E] 1
J •.<_ $ $ ]&±C [&= g t R& 6 G 0 ? R&0= &=X& )3
8] ? 0 $ > ]&±C [&= g c0 ` ? & :21.05.2024 $ > Š &@
-¡.- .-g ]&") 3 "Vb $ , . ? & : 24.05.2024 $ > 1 $2 G
cR&0 , ) + ) ( eg †0 GzÀÝ T =) 3 4 I « * G0
^£8 --1 < . d.r R& > ^£8* ? J ) &@ > Š &@ -¡.- .-g
]&") 3 "Vb $ , ."
41
The afore-quoted are the statements recorded by the Investigating
Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. upon which heavy reliance
is placed.
10. The victim has also tendered her statement under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The victim gives
vivid narration of what transpired on 02-02-2024, which is as
follows:
"On questioning the victim, she stated that she is giving
statement without any fear from any person. The victim is
knowing Kannada and English languages and she preferred to
give statement in English.
I am residing in abovesaid address along with my
mother. My mother is household used to take care of me. On
2-02-2024 at about 11.00 a.mm. to 12.00 noon around I went
to house of Sri Yadiyurappa for 2 reasons. Out of them first
reason with respect to the POCSO case which was registered
through my mother which was in the year 2015 in order to
make SIT enquiry of abovesaid case along with other related
cases and second reason is for the case which was occurred
with respect to my mother's trading business. I went to house
of Sri Yadiyurappa along with my mother, at that time Sri
Yadiyurappa was sitting in the hall of his house situated at
Dollar's colony. His house name is Dhavalagiri. At that time Sri
Yadiyurappa was watching TV and we greeting him by saying
Namaste. Immediately he held my right wrist by his left hand, I
thought he is as if my grandfather. My mother sat in another
sofa adjoining to the chair in which Sri Yadiyurappa was sitting.
He enquired about my name and education. Meanwhile my
mother was showing all documents which was brought by her.
He was not fully concentrated towards the documents which
was showing and explaining by my mother, but he was
42
watching TV. Later on, Sri Yadiyurappa ordered his cook by
name Hanumanthu to get tea for my mother and milk for me.
Accordingly, cook Hanumanthu brought the tea and Milk and
kept on Tipoy. Then Sri Yadiyurappa left my wrist and
instructed to have milk and my mother was instructed to have
tea. While drinking tea also my mother was continued to explain
details of her case. After having of milk and tea we kept our
cups on tipoy.
2. Later on, Sri Yadiyurappa called me inside. At
that time my mother asked whether she too permitted to
come inside or not, at that time he instructed my mother
to be in outside. At that time, I thought that, during
enquiry of the previous POCSO case I have been enquired
privately, so I thought like that only. At that time my
mother also instructed me to give cases details properly.
Accordingly, I followed Sri Yadiyurappa and I went to
one room which was situated beside the hall in which few
sofas and few tables were there. Immediate entering in
that room Sri Yadiyurappa locked the door with key. By
observing this locking process I thought why he is
locking the door. He approached near to me and asked
am I able to identify the culprit of previous case. I say
yes loudly. At that time again he asked about my age at
that time committal of previous offence. I told 6 and half
years old, again I repeated this word as he had not heard
it properly. While repeating my age factor second time,
he put his left hand in my shirt and bra and squeezed my
right breast, immediately I pushed his left hand with my
left hand and stay away from him. At that time, I about
to cry and told him to open the door with some angry. At
that time Sri Yadiyurappa said okey and he put his hand
in his pocket and take some money in order to give me. I
declined to accept it. At that time he instructed me to not
to deny any such offer, it is nothing but a blessings of the
elder persons. By saying this one he kept the money in
my hands. Thereafter he opened the key and we went
outside. My mother who was sitting outside saw my face
which was sad and my eyes were filled up of tears. She
guessed that as I have been enquired about previous
case, so due to recalling of previous bad event I might
have felt sad.
43
3. After coming out of the room Sri Yadiyurappa sat
in the same chair by saying to my mother that, I was so
mentally disturbed. Meanwhile I went to aside of my
mother, sit along with my mother. My mother was
continuously explaining that since 9 years period we
were trying to have justice, but in vain. At that time Sri
Yadiyurappa told that he is helpless and he will see. By
that time Sri Yadiyurappa also gave some money to my
mother, at that time my mother was not ready to accept
it. At that time I also told my mother that he had also
given money to me. Then we both declined to accept it,
but he advised that it is nothing but blessing of elderly
persons. After this assurance we took our bag and went
outside.
4. After crossing of their gate my mother was little bit
ahead and I was following my mother and called her as Amma.
She turned back and asked me what happened. At that time I
requested my mother to go to Starbucks i.e., coffee shop is
existing adjoining to Sri Yadiyurappa's house. Accordingly, we
went there and by sitting outside of that coffee shop I narrated
entire incident, was taken place inside the room of Sri
Yadiyurappa's house. After hearing of abovesaid incident my
mother get stunned and again we went back to Sri
Yadiyurappa's house to confront about that incident.
5. Then we went inside the gate of Sri Yadiyurappa's
house, then gunman by name Aradhya who sat near the main
door asked me what had happened and my mother replied
again we want to meet Sri Yadiyurappa. Then the gunman
instructed us to wait for some time as Sri Yadiyurappa was in
meeting with some other persons. Meanwhile my mother went
aside within the compound itself and made phone call one
lawyer by name R.R. Hiremath and narrated entire incident, at
that time I was standing near by mother. My mother told that
the above said counsel has instructed us to talk calmly.
Thereafter my mother came to me and took out the cash from
the bag which was given by Sri Yadiyurappa and we took one
selfie with that cash.
6. When my mother was talking in phone at that time I
was thinking that, in previous cases the police officials and
public have asked me and my mother about evidence to prove
the incident. Hence at this time also I thought that, the officials
44
may ask about evidence of present incident, then I made mind
to record the conversation to be held with above said Sri
Yadiyurappa. Then without knowledge to my mother after
taking of selfie with cash the persons who were in the meeting
came out, then while entering inside I set my phone for
recording. The persons who came outside known by my mother
and my mother spoke with them and requested them to be
there only till we come out. Accordingly, we entered in the
house. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa was watching TV. My
mother asked him what he has done with her daughter inside
that room. Sri Yadiyurappa replied to my mother that I am just
like his granddaughter. Immediately my mother raised question
that, if it like so, why you put your hand in her shirt/blouse.
Immediately he dragged my mother's hand and made her sit in
sofa, I too followed my mother. Sri Yadiyurappa explained that
he checked me and I am just like his granddaughter as he has 7
grand kids. Even though my mother objected for the thing
done by him with me repeatedly, even though he answered that
he want to check me just like that and I am like his grand-
daughter. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa asked my mother what
can be done by him. At that time my mother insisted him to
support our cases in order to have proper SIT investigation and
also insisted to support my mother's cheating case in order to
get our share in cheated amount.
7. After having little bit conversation with him, he
pressed the buzzer and called the gunman inside and instructed
him to make phone call to Sri D.K. Shivakumar. Accordingly,
gunman ring up the phone call to Sri D.K. Shivakumar, but
other side phone call is not picked. Hence, Sri Yadiyurappa
assured us that he will make call to him and highlight the entire
case facts, then he will report to us. At that time my mother
asked his contact number, at that time he instructed my mother
to take cell number of his gunman Aradhya, accordingly
gunman gave his cell number. At that time my mother again
requested him as we suffered allot in number of cases, hence
he assured and advised to make phone call his gunman's
phone, so that gunman will connect it with him immediately.
Thereafter he again advised us to come again if required. After
having talk with him, he immediately instructed his gunman to
make phone call to Commissioner Dayananda. Gunman made
phone call to Commissioner and he picked up the phone. At that
time Sri Yadiyurappa requested him by saying that he is
45
sending one lady by name Mamatha and further said that she
suffered allot as nobody has supported them properly in order
to get adequate justice. Further he says that it is our duty to
support the victims towards getting of justice. Further he pokes
to the Commissioner that we have a genuine case, hence he
sending us to his office along with documents, so instructed him
to go through the documents and what help which is possible to
him to make favour. Further he instructed the Commissioner
after having talk with us, he has to report to Sri Yadiyurappa.
After cutting of phone call he instructed us to approach the
abovesaid Commissioner. At that time my mother told that, she
will not leave any police official or Minist4er who gave torture to
us. He says okey. Thereafter we took our bag and came out of
the house.
8. Then we came to bus stop and booked auto in order to
reach the abovesaid Commissioner office. While going by auto I
show the phone recording of phone to my mother and she
watched half of the recorded video and by saying that later on
she will see the remaining part. Immediately I took the phone
and saved abovesaid video in my Google cloud. We approached
the Commissioner office and my mother has narrated about
trading offence and previous POCSO case along with related
cases by having of documents and requested for proper SIT
investigation. After going through the documents orally they
assured as he will going through the documents in detail and he
will intimate us. But, at that time we never disclosed the
incident which was took place with me to that Commissioner.
Thereafter we went outside the office and went home.
9. Thereafter on 3rd and 4th February when my mother
tried to make phone call to gunman of Sri Yadiyurappa by name
Aradhya, but gunman not responded properly nor picked our
phone call. Hence, on 4th February itself one person by name
S.S. Hiremath friend of my mother instructed to approach the
Sri Yadiyurappa's son by name Vijayendra. Accordingly, on 5th
February around about 11.00 a.m. we again approached house
of Sri Yadiyurappa, Dhavalagiri along with abovesaid
S.S.Hiremath in order to meet the Vijayendra. At that time
security guard stopped us by saying that, so many persons,
public along with media person are there inside, so he made us
to wait for some time. Then we went to abovesaid Starbucks
coffee shop were when I was sitting and Hiremath and my
46
mother were standing at little distance. At that time my mother
narrated the entire incident to abovesaid S.S.Hiremath. We
waited for sometime and later on we went inside the house as
gunman instructed us to sit in basement where some chairs are
there. We waited for some time, meanwhile Vijayendra went
away on some work. Hence, it was not possible for us to talk
with the Vijayendra. But, we again approached the Sri
Yadiyurappa to talk further. We entered in to hall and Sri
Yadiyurappa was there sitting in the sofa. Myself and my
mother sat on sofa and abovesaid S.S. Hiremath was also
sitting on the separate chair. My mother told that, the above
said Aradhya gunman not picked her phone calls, therefore it
make us to come again to meet you, at that time Sri
Yadiyurappa replied that I already told us that he was helpless
but he instructed the concerned Commissioner to go through
the documents. Meanwhile, the S.S. Hiremath instructed one
person who is present there to take photo pics of us through
Hiremath's phone. After taking photos Sri Yadiyurappa
repeatedly saying same thing as he is helpless and he
instructed through concerned Commissioner to take care of the
cases. Lastly we took another pics along with Sri Yadiyurappa
and came out of the housed. Later on, above said S.S.Hiremath
had send the photo pics to our phone later an we went home.
10. Later on, on 15-02-2024 my mother through online
lodged with the complaint to Hon'ble President and through e-
mail she send same complaint to Home Secretary and
Commissioner probably Dayanand. Because already some
persons were knowing above abovesaid recorded video made by
me as they were pressurizing us to send that video. But my
mother declined to publish it. When the pressure of the above
said was not tolerable at that time, my mother uploaded the
above said recorded video and screen shot copy of the
complaint in face book media. Thereafter on 16-02-2024 at the
evening time there was one phone call through unknown
number by name Rudresh by saying that, the son's of the Sri
Yadiyurappa by name Raghavendra and Vijayendra want to
meet us. At that time my mother told that, today it is not
possible for us as we were very nearest to our house. Again he
insisted to come immediately, but my mother declined to obey
his instruction by saying that we will on tomorrow.
47
11. On 17-02-2024 in the morning time abovesaid
Rudresh again made phone call by saying that, they are already
nearest to our house and went to meet us. Then my mother
invited him to come home. We are residing in apartment and
they were in the car near to our gate. We approached our gate
to invite where 2 persons were inside the car including Rudresh.
Then we requested them to come at garden which is existing
nearest the park which is existing within our compound gate.
Accordingly, we went in the park and sit in the bench, for safety
purpose we set our mobile recording. I do not know about that
Rudresh and another one by name Mariswamy. They get
introduced themselves. They sat on another bench. When they
normally talking with us I observed cleanly the above said
Mariswamy was capturing phone of us and recording was on.
Rudresh and my mother were talking and Rudresh told my
mother to approach the Sri Yadiyurappa's son's by name
Vijayendra and Raghavendra who where at home situated at
Dollar's colony. My mother told as we were in simple dress, so
will come in proper dress. At that time, Rudresh told us, he will
want for us in park. Accordingly, went hone and get ready and
come outside. My mother made phone call to the PA of the
Vijayendra by name Arun and told about abovesaid Rudresh and
Mariswamy who have approached us, at that time Arun told us
that they both are belongs to them and instructed us to
accompany them. My mother told Rudresh that we will come
through auto cab, but he insisted to come with them through
their car. The diver and Rudresh were sat in front side, myself,
my mother and Mariswamy sat in backside of the Furtuner car.
While going in this car my mother recorded short video to show
our journey through their car. Then almost we were nearer to
the Dhavalagiri house, at that time Rudresh told us to enter the
Sri Yadiyurappa's house through their rear door in order to
avoid the public and media agency. My mother insisted to enter
through front gate only. Accordingly, we went their house
through front gate. While getting down of the car we found no
person and public in front of the door. Apart entering into the
gate Rudresh told us to wait by sitting at basement.
Accordingly, we were sitting in the sofa at basement and
waiting. At that time Raghavendra came there and instructed
to Rudresh to take us through door which is existing at
basement through which we can enter inside the house.
Thereafter Raghavendra went inside the house. After sometime
Rudresh approached us to take inside the house. Accordingly,
48
through staircase we entered inside the house. At that time, in
the hall nobody was there, the abovesaid Rudresh took us to
the room which was adjoining to the hall in which the previou9s
incident was taken place. Accordingly, we entered that room
where Sri Yadiyurappa and Raghavendra were sitting on the
sofa chair. But, as per assurance given by the Rudresh and Arun
we were about to meet the Raghavendra and Vijayendra son's
the Sri Yadiyurappa. But, inside the room Sri Yadiyurappa and
Raghavendra were there. As per their instruction we sat on the
single sofa. Likewise Mariswamy and Rudresh were also came
and sitting on the another sofa. Before there sitting on sofa Sri
Yadiyurappa instructed them to keep aside the mobile phones
belongs to all of us. So I gave our phone to Rudresh who kept it
outside the room and closed the door after coming inside.
Meanwhile Sri Yadiyurappa instructed his cook Hanumanthu to
bring watermelon juice for all except him. Sri Yadiyurappa
insisting us to have a juice, but I declined to having juice as I
have doubt on them. But, he gave juice to my mother forcibly.
My mother was sipping juice slowly.
12. When my mother started to talk with Sri
Yadiyurappa, at that time he told that he already instructed the
concerned Commissioner to have fair investigation. My mother
told him that after visiting the Commissioner on 2nd February
she has no updated information from the concerned
Commissioner. My mother narrated that she had visited number
of times and met to Sri Yadiyurappa for justice including other
politicians, but no required help provided by anybody including
NGO. My mother narrated that we met the Vijayendra in the
month of January 2024 at Shikaripura and submitted set of
documents. At that time Vijayendra told his PA Arun to keep
those documents in sealed condition in cover. Then, the
Raghavendra asked my mother is that so, by calling the PA
Arun instructed to being that document. Accordingly, Arun
brought the documents and gave it to the Raghavendra. He
verified the entire documents lightly and was asking about the
documents and my mother was narrating about documentation.
Sri Yadiyurappa assured us to support our cases by calling the
Commissioner their house and given required relief.
Accordingly, Sri Yadiyurappa instructed to have Rudresh
number and timely enquire about the case developments. The
Raghavendra said that we could not have put the videos on
facebook and ought not to have complaint to President.
49
Meanwhile, Sri Yadiyurappa instructed abovesaid Rudresh to
delete all video clips which were recorded in our mobile.
Rudresh instructed abovesaid Arun to delete above said all
records and complaints from our phone. Accordingly, Arun
brought my mothers phone inside the room and opened the
phone and deleted the screen shot of the complaint was lodged
to the Hon'ble President including videos by entering into my
mother's facebook account. He also verified phone gallery in
order to deletion of recordings and screenshot complaints and
videos. After deletion of all those evidences he kept it outside.
He too insisted to delete the complaint which was lodged before
the President and the e-mail complaint lodged before the
Secretary, at that time my mother replied that, Sri Yadiyurappa
has committed blunder, so declined to delete those evidences.
But in my mobile we have recorded the conversation with Sri
Yadiyurappa held on 2nd February remained intact as I did not
have taken my phone with me. Thereafter we stood up go out
of the house, at that time Sri Yadiyurappa who was sitting on
chair nearby table on which one Mini bag was kept, that has
been offered to us. When my mother objected for is, at that
time Sri Yadiyurappa told as we have problems, so he requested
to take that bag. My mother not agreed to take that bag s we
are fighting for justice since more than 9 years period. I too
requested them to leave us without such offer. At that time all
were insisted us to sit on the sofa and forced to take that bag.
At that time I requested them to issue some acknowledgement
regarding giving money to us. Finally they insisted to take
money in the form of loan including the amount what which
given by Sri Yadiyurappa on 2-02-2024. Likewise, Sri
Yadiyurappa also insisted to accept it as a loan along with
previous amount given by him. In turn I insisted them to given
acknowledgement in written to that effect, but they not agreed
to do so. As per instruction of Sri Yadiyurappa above said
Rudresh took that bag and kept it in our bag pack. While going
out from the house, Sri Yadiyurappa told us to inform any
information to the abovesaid Rudresh over phone. While going
out, Rudresh instructed us to go through their Fortuner car and
accordingly, their driver gave lift to us for about half of the
distance. Thereafter we get down from their car and picked the
bus. Thereafter we gave our phones to the CID officers
including cash bag which was given on 17-02-2024 and cash
given on 2-02-2024. Entirely we gave amount of ₹35,000/- to
50
the CID offices as they asked to submit them towards collection
of evidence.
13. Hence, based abovesaid narrated facts and
circumstances I lodged with the complaint against the above
said Sri Yadiyurappa. Hence, it is my humble request to take
appropriate legal action against him.
The above said facts are true.
Sd/- 26-03-2024
Signature of the Victim. R.O.I and A.C.
Sd/- XXV A.C.M.M.,
Bengaluru."
(Emphasis added)
There is a vivid narration of the incident by the victim about what
all has happened on that day. Now the issue is statements under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. being pitted against the statement of the
victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is statement vs.
statement. What would outweigh the other is not the stage, at
which this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C., would consider. Such consideration of quashment of
the proceedings, relying on the statement under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is only under rare and
exceptional circumstances, when such statements would clearly
indicate a further proceeding to become an abuse of the process of
51
the law or resulting in patent injustice. It is no law that those
statements should not be looked into at all, at the time of
quashment of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The inherent powers are wide enough to do so, but they can be
exercised on a case to case basis, when exceptions of the kind
noted hereinabove are present, which would be to prevent
miscarriage of justice. I do not find any such threat of miscarriage
of justice seen in the entire proceeding. There is also an audio
transcript of the conversation between the petitioner and the first
informant, what is relevant need to be quoted. The relevant
transcript is as follows:
"ªÀÄUÀÄ: AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀrÛzÁgÉ
vÁ¬Ä: --------------
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf £Á£ÀÄ ªÀĪÀÄvÀ
X: ºÀ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¤ªÀÄUÉ Contact ªÀiÁrÛzÀ£À®è
X: ºÀ ºËzÀÄ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ------
X: §¤ß EzÁgÉ K£ï «µÀAiÀÄ §A¢zÁgÉ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: §A¢zÁgÀ
ªÀÄUÀÄ: MAzÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀ meet ªÀiÁqï©qÀt
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: MAzï ¤«ÄµÀ Ej MAzÉà MAzÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀ
X: ºÉÆÃUï §¤ß
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: E¯Éè Ej
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf E¯Éèà EzÁæ C¥Áàf K£ï ªÀiÁr¢æ ¤ÃªÀÅ M¼ÀUÉ PÀgÀPÉÆAqÀ ºÉÆÃV
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: M¼ÀUÉ PÀgÀPÉÆAqÀ ºÉÆÃV K£ï ªÀiÁr¢æ C¥Áàf
52
©J¸ïªÉÊ: PÉüÀÄ K£ï ªÀiÁqÉÝ CAvÀ
£À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼À EzÀÝAUÉ CªÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: M¼ÀUÉ ¨Ëè¸ï M¼ÀUÉ PÉÊ ºÁQzÀæAvÀ®è C¥Áàf
©J¸ïªÉÊ: £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝAUÉ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: DAiÀÄÄÛ M¼ÀUÉ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ »A¸É C£ÀĨsÀ«¹zÁݼÉ.
©J¸ïªÉÊ: C¯Áè ªÀÄj MAzï ¤«ÄµÀ ºÉýÛä PÉüÀÄ, ¤Ã£Éãï vÀ¯É PÉr¸ÉÆÌèÉÃqÀ, £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ
7 d£À EzÀÝgÉ, vÀÄA¨Á M¼Éîà ºÀÄrÎ CªÀ¼ÀÄ, £ÉÆÃqÉÝ £Á£ÀÄ, CªÀ¼Àß ZÉ£ÁßV ¨É¼À¸ÀÄ K£ï
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ £Á£ï ªÀiÁrÛä.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: CªÀ¼À Blouse M¼ÀUÉ PÉÊ ºÁQzÀgÀ®è C¥Áàf
©J¸ïªÉÊ: E¯Áè ªÀÄj
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: £Á£ÀÄ vÀqÀPÉƼÉÆÃPÉ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf J®ègÀÆ »AUÉ£Á zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁqÉÆÃzÀÄ
©J¸ïªÉÊ: CªÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ¼À EzÀÝAUÉà vÀÄA§ M¼Éîà ºÀÄqÀÄV ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÉÝ CªÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ
M¼ÉîÃzÁUÀÄvÉÛ, CzÉÃ£ï ¨ÉÃPÉÆà £Á£ï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrÛä ZÉ£ÁßV CªÀ¼À£Àß £ÉÆÃqÀPÉÆÃ
C搙.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: »AUÉ »ÃUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrÛÃgÁ 9 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ºÉÆÃgÁl ªÀiÁrÛ¢¤ C¥Áàf £À£Àß ªÉÄïÉ
NOC PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¯ÁAiÀÄgï 9£Éà ¯ÁAiÀÄgï. £Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ CAvÀ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï UÀ¼À£Àß
©J¸ïªÉÊ: ¤AUÉ K£ï ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÉüÀÄ.
©J¸ïªÉÊ: C®è ªÀÄj ¤£ÀUÉãÀ ¨ÉÃPÀ ºÉüÀÄ £Á£ï ªÀiÁrÛä
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï Er¹ E¯Áè SIT Form ªÀiÁrì, ¸ÉàµÀ¯ï E£Éé¹ÖUÉõÀ£ï
©J¸ïªÉÊ: AiÀiÁgÀ AiÀiÁjUÉ ªÀiÁqïì¨ÉÃPÀÄ, AiÀiÁjUÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÉâÃPï.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ jmÉÊqïð eÉ£ÀÄå£ï DVgÉÆà dqïÓ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ºÉUÀqÉ CAvÀ
dqïÓUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖ©lÄÖ J¸ï.L.n ¥sÁªÀiïð ªÀiÁrìAiÀįÁè F PÉøï£À°è JµÀÄÖ C£ÁåAiÀÄ
UÀ¼ÀÄ DUÁÛ EzÉ, ªÀÄPÀ̼À PÉøÀ°è CzɯÁè DZÉ §gÀÄvÉÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÆæ¥sï ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ºÉýÛä.
54 ¸Á«gÀ PÁ¯ï gÉPÁqïÀìð EzÉ. 54 ¸Á«gÀ PÁ¯ï gÉPÁqïìð EzÉ... ..
©J¸ïªÉÊ: K£ï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃQÃUÀ ºÉüÀÄ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: £À£ÀUÉ SIT Form ªÀiÁrì, ¸ÉàµÀ¯ï E£Éé¹ÖUÉõÀ£ï nêÀiï, E£Éé¹ÖUÉõÀ£ï D¯ï zÀ
PÉÃ¸ï ºÉAUÉ ¥Éưøï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¯ÁAiÀÄgïUÀ¼ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ gËr ²ÃlgïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï
UÁåAUïzÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£É M¼ÀUÉ £ÀÄVì vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî CAvÀ
¥ÀÆæªï ªÀiÁqÁPÁ?
©J¸ïªÉÊ: £Á£ï ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛä ©qÀÄ.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÉèèÉÃPÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÉèèÉÃPÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ vÀUÉÆ½î ¤ÃªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ
©J¸ïªÉÊ: £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýÛä PÉüÀÄ ¨Á¼À M¼Éî ºÀÄqÀÄV CªÀ¼ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÉÝà ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÉÝ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ "AiÀiÁgÉÆçâjUÀÆ£ÀÄ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®è" ZÉ£ÁßV ¨É¼É¸ÀÄ
£Á£ÉãÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÉÆà £Á£ï ªÀiÁrÛä
EzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛ¤
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß C®è
EzÀ£Àß §¸ÀªÀgÁd ¨ÉƪÀiÁä¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÉà ªÀiÁrÛ£ÀAvÀ ºÉýzÀÄæ
DªÁUÉèÃ£É C«æUÉ £À£Àß §UÉÎ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀļÀÄî create ªÀiÁr
53
©J¸ïªÉÊ:FUÀ ªÀÄÄVvÀ®èªÀÄä
©J¸ïªÉÊ: AiÀiÁj ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ FUÀ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÌÉ ºÉý
¤ªÀÄä ªÀiÁvÀ AiÀiÁgÀÄ vÉUÉAiÀÄ®è E®è CAzÉæ central ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹, zÉÆqÀØ zÉÆqÀØ
IPS officer ¹PÀ̺ÁPÉÆArzÁgÉ MAzÀ qÀd£ïUÀlÖ¯É, IO UÀ¼ÀÄ ¹PÁÌPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ
©J¸ïªÉÊ: £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrÛä «dAiÀÄtÚUÉ ªÀiÁvÁqï©lÄÖ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: £Á£ÀÄ C«æUÉ PÉÆnÖ¢¤ £Á£ÀÄ E£Àß ©qÀ®è EµÉÆÖAzÀÄ zËdð£ÀåUÀ¼ÁVâlÄÖ EªÁUÀ £À£Àß
ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ »A¸É DVÛzÉ.
©J¸ïªÉÊ: £À£Àß dªÁ¨ÁÝj £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrÛä K£ï¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrÛ¤
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: £Á£ÀÄ C¥ÁàfAiÀÄAvÀ PÀjÃw¤ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀvÀgÀºÀ£Éà £ÀqɹPÉÆ½î £À£Àß protection
¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸À® £Á£ÀÄ E°è §A¢¢¤
©J¸ïªÉÊ: RArvÁ £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrÛä ¤Ã£ï K£ï vÀ¯ÉPÉqÀ¸ÀPÉÆèÉÃqÀ, £À¤ßAzÀ DUÉÆà J¯Áè
¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛä DAiÀiÁÛ.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: £À£ÀUÉ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ »A¸É DVzÉ £À£ÀUÉ
©J¸ïªÉÊ: ¤£Àß £ÉÆêÀÅ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ EAl°eÉAmï EzÉAiÀiÁ A to Z explain ªÀiÁr¢AiÀiÁ
CªÀ¼ÀÄ M¼Éîà ºÀÄqÀÄV ¨É¼É¸ÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛAiÀiÁÛ, AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÀÄÌ ¤£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®è
¸Àj ªÀiÁqÁìuÁ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ EzÀ£Àß SIT ªÀiÁrì £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è£ÀÆ PÉÆrÛ¤ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï CtÚUÀÆ
PÉÆrÛä
©J¸ïªÉÊ: ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ºÀvÀæ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýÛä, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ºÀvÀæ ªÀiÁvÁqÀÄ
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ opposition £À°è EzÀÝPÉÆAqÀÄ support ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀ®è ¤ÃªÀÅ gÉʸï
ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ FUÀ -----PÉÊ¯É DUÀvÀÛ®è
©J¸ïªÉÊ: rPÉ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgïUÉ vÀUÉƼÀ¥Áà
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ C¯Áé.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ºÁ
©J¸ïªÉÊ: DzÀgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÀoÀªÁ¢PÀtªÀÄä, ªÉÄZÀѨÉÃPÀÄ ¤£Àß.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf £Á£ï M¨Éîà AiÀiÁgÀÆÝ ¸À¥ÉÆÃmïð vÀUÆ É ÃAr¯Áè M§â¼Éà £À£ÀUÉ JµÀÆÖ CmÉA¥ïÖ
lÄ ªÀÄqÀðgï ªÀiÁqÉÆPÉÌ mÉæöÊ ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ »mï CAqï gÀ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ®AUïì
PÁå£ÀìgïzÀÄ D¥ÀgÉõÀ£ï DzÁUÀ DQìd£ï §Azï ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆêÀiÁUÀÆ
ºÉÆÃV¢Ýä--------CdÓgÀÄ CAzÀÄæ ¤£ÀߣÀß £Á£ÀÄ UÀªÀĤ¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ï
DgÁªÀiÁV §jÛÃAiÀiÁ CAvÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ £ÀAUÉ CWÉÆÃjUÀ½AzÀ, «µÀÄÚ ªÀiÁAiÉÄ CAvÉ.
PÀÄnÖà ZÉÃvÀ£ï JAvÀAvÁ vÁAwæPÀ ªÀiÁAwæPÀ ªÁªÀiÁZÁgÀ J¯Áè ªÀiÁqÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£É
¨ÁV°UÉ §AzÀÄ C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï C°è §AzÀÄ gÀPÀÛ ZÀÄ«Ää ºÉÆÃUÁÛgÉ, 2 UÀAmÉ 3
UÀAmÉ gÁwæAiÀÄ°è, MAzÉÆAzÀ¸À° ªÀÄUÀÄ MAzÉÆAzÉà EgÀÄvÉÛà Day time C°è
PÉÆÃmïðUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ
©J¸ïªÉÊ: ---------------CªÀ¼ÀÄ M¼Éîà ºÀÄqÀÄVÃ.
ªÀĪÀÄvÀ: ¨ÁV®Ä §AzÀÄ §rÃwgÁÛgÉ.
54
JA - ¨ÁV®Ä §AzÀÄ §rÃwgÁÛgÉ. D ªÀÄUÀÄ ¨ÁV®Ä vÉUÉAiÀįÁè MAzÉà EgÀÛ®è
ªÀģɣÀ°è
ªÉÊ - PÀ®gï¥sÀįï DV EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ
ªÀÄvÉÛ M¼Éî ºÀÄqÀÄV CªÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ
JA - CªÀ¼Éà ºÉüÁÛ¼É. ©qÀzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀªÀiÁä CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ
PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉÆà CªÀgÀÄ JAxÀ ¥Éưøï D¦üøÀgï DUÀ®Ä JAxÀ zÉÆqÀØ
«Ä¤¸ÀÖgï DUÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ£ÁågÀ£ÀÆß ©qÀzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ
C¥Áàf JAmÉÊgï ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï 9 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀß §UÀθÀPÉÌ DV®è
CAzÉæ ºÉAUÉ £Á£ÀÄ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ ºÉý
ªÉÊ - D±ÀÑAiÀÄð C¥Áà -----------
JA - 9 ªÀµÀð
£À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæ«ÄüÁ £ÉøÀVð CªÀgÀÄ
£ÀAUÉ ¸À¥ÉÆÃmïð ªÀiÁrzÀÄæ ¸ÁÖnðAUï£À°è
CªÀgÀÄ CªÁUÉè ºÉýzÀÄæ, ±ËAiÀÄð ¥Àæ±À¹Û PÉÆmÉæ ¤AUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ C¥Àà
¥ÀÆæ¥sï »qÉÆÌAr¢Ã¤ £Á£ÀÄ
£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw £ÁªÀÅ §jà JdÄPÉõÀ£ï D¹Û ªÀiÁrzÀ¯Áè
C¥Áàf CªÀgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÃ¥sï EgÁÛgÉ C£ÉÆßÃzÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå C¯Áé
What kind of society are we going to create, how safe
our children are
JA - CªÀgÀÄ vÉVÃvÁ¬Ä®è ¸Àgï
ªÉÊ - ºÁ. . .
J - CªÀgÀÄ vÀVÃvÁ¬Ä®è, ªÁ¥À¸ï CªÀgÉà ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ
ªÉÊ - ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgïUÉ ªÀiÁvÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ºÉýÛä.
ºÉÆÃV ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁqÀÄ EªÀvÀÄÛ JµÉÆÖwÛzÀÄæ ¤AUÉ PÁAmÁPïÖ ªÀiÁrÛä.
JA - £À£ÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä £ÀA§gï ¨ÉÃPÀÄ
¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ J¤mÉʪÀiï PÁAmÁPïÖ ªÀiÁqÉÆà ºÁUÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ
ªÉÊ - £À£Àß ºÀvÀæ ªÉƨÉʯï E®è ¤£Àß £ÀA§gï PÉÆqÀÄ
JA - a£Áß ªÉƨÉʯï PÉÆqÀÄ
fJ¸ï - EzÀÄ £À£ÀßzÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï
JA - §ÄPï C°è §gÉÆÌAqï ©rÛä. ªÉƨÉʯï
£À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï PÀ¼É¢zÉ C¥Áàf, 25£Éà vÁjÃRÄ ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ PÉÆrÛ®è.
fJ¸ï - PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£À DVzÉ.
JA - "p 0 R&
ªÉÊ - ªÀÄvÉÛ ¤£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ AiÀiÁªÀ £ÀA§gï EzÉà ªÀÄj.
JA - c F " 0 4_AiÉÄÃ 00` F ` 0 4_
ªÉÊ - ) D c X& zÉÆà ) D
JA - 8 9 0 4_ J $
ªÉÊ - 80` A ,$ ( eg FzÁå >
55
fJ¸ï - F c 90 c 9P R&t
JA - ]&! ˆ ? &+ˆ
J - 7348998962
JA - < &^= c $ ?
J - 0 4_ R&
0 4_ &0 ; ¤ DzÀÆæ
E£ÉÆß§æ ºÀvæÀ EgÀÄvÉÛ.
JA -
ªÉÊ - ©J¸ïªÉÊ c 4gÉÆÌ"ªÀiÁä
c $ R& 10 B6 R&D 7&,
JA - 00 ˜ 7 < &, FzÀÄæ 8 )&g R& , 8
ªÉÊ - anytime you can telephone to me 0 4_ R&qÀÆ
)& 1 F ` [&> & 7&,X&,
&0 ˜0 1 ` R&D PÉÆà c R& , ¤Ã
JA - &0 OD?¯Áè ch&rŽ
ªÉÊ - ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï A ,$ J • ´ i9 ------
8 0 A¥]&? c 7&, .,
ªÉÊ - -N 6 , 1 &0 R&7& , 8
JA - ch&rŽ &0 h&1 Z :Y :Y <@ 1 &0 &0 ) 5 6 O , 8, 00
D) ¼ÀPÉÌ vÁPÀvÀÄÛ EzÉ. 8 , c G DzÀæ G ¥sÊÉ ¯ï [&: &$ ) = J&$
&0 ! R& , 8 < 00 ]Z †C R&t&, F &+ . £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ£ÀÄ §AzÀÄ
gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀÄqÀÄØ ¹PĄ̀ÁgÀzÄÀ CAvÀ
ªÉÊ - c $o' F G
JA - Jn &0 c r c 98 7 R&D) 3 <! G, 83 YZ
00` ch&rŽ 4 < Y† <@ eh& <@ .
ªÉÊ - - GzÀgÉÃ?
JA - / ( !Q G F &+ !
JA - 0 9 c 98! < Y† <@
ªÉÊ - / ( !Q G F &+ &
JA - Jn M&=f 0!$-------PÁ½Ã $ -Y 6 &0 9 YZ? Ÿ> .....
É.. ( £ÉßÃ0 &0 Ÿ> J @ :K 2§0 R&t 3 t 4 F $ W1* w R&t&,
X& 1 police department F entire police department CªÀjUÉ
instructions J @ 7 , A R& [ 6 Y† -Y 6 >8 9A 14
c >! , . cY 6 > §AzÀÆ §AzÀÆ 0 7& F c $ d -¡. .<_ R& G
ch&rŽ
56
ªÉÊ - F 7 , c G R&7& $ & .
JA - ch&rŽ -Y 6 > 8 9£Àß a R& ?+ 8 7&,. :K* 12§£ßÀ
-Y 6 >a R& ?+ 8
ªÉÊ - c G 9 8 0 &0 R&7& $ F 7 , 7&
JA - &0 & 4 ??+ 8
00` ! D0 u 7 £ÀÆ 4 ??+ 8
ªÉÊ - 80` u 7 R&7& + F 7, c G 9
JA - F G & R&7& ? 8
ªÉÊ - R&7& ?
JA - Jn 8 À å :™&0[n^
Chief Minister DVzÁÝUÆ G 8 9 A7&1£Éà 4
R&7& ?+ 8. &ZÀ¥àÀ u 7 4 :K* 12§ u 7 4 zÀÆ
J - )&] > 4 ? + _ 7& R&7& J ?1 d [&>
JA - d [&> c G FM G 4 ??+ 8
00` ! D0 u 7 2016-17
J - c G J YZ 4 ? +
J YZ )&] > 4 ? +
JA - ------@ ; 4 &K R&9s c2§8! 0 J +
ªÉÊ - S š R&D F `
J - J&... _ S š R& , 8
ªÉÊ - ([ ¤ J& cu Z w R&7&t ' c
J - J&É > _
JA - 8 Chief Minister <zÁUÀÆè 4 ??+ 8 F "V opposition party F , G
ªÉÊ - <! cS z R& M&q
JA - 8 X&>UÉÆà œ † R& J zÉæ cN 6
ªÉÊ - X&>UÉÃ
JA - [ 6 Y† iY0_ J ?1,
g vïgÀÆ R&rè®è. 8g R&_ R& G G
ªÉÊ - g vï dˆ p 0 cM&q
JA - R& G ch&rŽ,
¸ï £À $ R&D F ) 3 7& b UÉÃ
JA - -Y 6 ¶1¡ ( ch&rŽ LzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ pages F it is not a parallel post
office £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉÆrÛä 8 )&Z$ G F &`>! ) , & c G it is just
autograph J&W ?+ & cN 6 . That is what is happening. This is not why
57
we are coming to your place because c G local police station c G R& , G
even commissioner J @, 8
ªÉÊ - commissioner ˜0 J ˆ&, .
JA - 8 0 . <_ J&W -¡. .<_ t e o† z & c 7& X&0 ©.
ªÉÊ - X&0 © d¼Éîà 0 µÁå
JA - Jn h&rŽ, < W1* w R& $ ˜0 , ! 00` !ˆ b F$ )&zÉæ &0
J F uÁ 9 YZ ch&rŽ 00 [&¡6 ] _ c G F$ "V &0 d ?0
d h& Z J ! G d ?0 d &5g ˜£ÀÆ J $ , G. £ÀA J
Ž £Á R& $ . & c ) 56 ) R&DzÁ@ 1 d $ h&sUÉÆÃ
<! W®è &0 .
ªÉÊ - X&0 © d¼Éîà 0 µÁå
JA - Jn ch&rŽ, < d"!t £Éà OD G G &0 cM B ( A† ch&s w
( w cY 6 > ( g R& ?1, cY 6 > >) q 6 R& , 8 cY 6 > J @, 8 X&$
d4'$ a R&D G.
ªÉÊ - K ... X&0 © vÀPÆ
É ˆ#
JA - X&$ a R&D G jÃ.. 00` 4 Q "Vp c J ˆ&, .
ªÉÊ - q r 8 0 calm <@ R&7& ) ˆ&, 8 0 J • ´ R&7&t , .
•& ]&@ R&7&D .
f.J¸ï - d 8iY
JA - ch&rŽ & 7&s,
00` ! 6 YZ ! <]&@ £ÀÆ suffer < &, F G.
&0 X& 7&s [&s ) ¼ÁÛ J "h&rŽ. 8 c0C q d responsible
<@, 3 7 <zÉæ, ! ˜0 -Y 6, 0 0 r, J &mÁ
R&t h&r.
ªÉÊ - &0 80 d ct qe R&t FN 6 8 0 X&$ ` a R&D zÀÆæ
R&™&0]&@ short <@ d $ 8iY G @ , J • ´ R& &D 1 they
will not take it seriously calm <@ q r c 0 PÉÆÃ c 0`
R&7&D .
J - _ 0 [ ,, AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥àÀ [&J 4gÀÄ s $
JA - 8 - R& C ch&rŽ,
¨ÉƪÀiÁä¬Ä c $ J 1- . . R& , 8 c d M 5_ £ÀÆ ) 6 1.
ªÉÊ - c < ,ªiÀ Áä
JA - c G <! FUÀ EgÉÆà Government C¯Éèà ªÀiÁrì.
J - _0 [, _
58
_0 [, _
J - _ _ _
_ AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà [&J 4$ s _ ¸ÁºÉçÄæ R&7&t&,
_
ªÉÊ - AiÀiÁgÀÄ
J - iY0_ [&J 4gÀÄ X&0 © gÀªÀgÀÄ
ªÉÊ - X&0 © c , AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà R&7& , 8 0 [&3$.
7& c J 'lÆÖ, c $0 ¼ÀÄ» ) , 8, 4A" 7 zÉæUÉ PÉÆÌÃA gÉà 4A"
c &= <@ c >UÉà X&$ c >UÉà >X&@ wZ R& ,¯Áè. 0 9D = F
c $0` wZ R&DzÀÆ c $0` J gr R&qÉÆà CA +, FUÀ¯Éà PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁ
iY0_ <¨ UÉÀ J 7& c 4gÁÛgÉ. c G J > UÉÃmï C°è d"!t OD ,
c $ c $ !"V 4gÁÛgÉ. :5 6 •& ]&@ c $ R& ) O5 6, c > J gr
R&D 7 , ]& 0 . Genuine case F c ) 3 3$ &0
8 J ˆ&, F &0 [&R&0=]&@ X&>! œ † !ˆ R&D G 8
, .G q r "Vb ) , 8, 7& c J '5 6 ›) J ! 9 iY0_
<¨ UÉ J @
JA - ºÁ. . . <( M œ † R&
ªÉÊ - 8 0 J ˆ # J " 9, c $ ˜0 R&t&, R& G,
80` D = 8 0 R&D .
JA - 00` D = &0 R&qÁÛ E¢Ã¤ ch&rŽ, d
ªÉÊ - c 80` ! ..
iY0_ A ,$ short <@ ˜0 c &= <@ cY 6 J "V.
J - ¯ï DV R&7& .
ªÉÊ - c & ( M 8 0 œ † 0 4_ R&7& J "V c $
˜0 J $ c
JA - >
ªÉÊ - <( M &0 v&M ck R& 8A J , 8.
J - g <@ R&7&
JA - C°è £Á£ÀÄ J¯Éèà .. ... but EªÁUÀ £ÀAzÀ EzÁAiÀÄÛ®è CªÀ½UÉ 7 < ,.
ªÉÊ - E®è Don't worry I will take care.
JA - £À£ÀUÉ I am very c ) 3 3$ F0 ` 00` !"V c 0 face
R&qÉâÃPÉÆà c j <@,
ªÉÊ - u 7 J @) . &0 J gr R&qÉÛãÉ. &0 J ¼ÉãÉ, &0 J& R&t , .
59
JA - ch&rŽ &0 F R& 1 conviction <! 7 , 56 3" case 0 G, 56
3" PÉøï£À°è F R& 1 conviction <! 7 ,, iW3zÀÝ 98 ) 7 zÉæ
R&qÁÛgÉ. c c $ G) 3 <! G. < 3"V mentally distruct <@ full life
J&ˆ&! 7 ,.
ªÉÊ - ! c "V u&$ R&t 3 7&ˆ J ; ´ R&7&D D. !J !
commissioner A 1 short DV ºÉüÀÄ. $ <@ AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà c $
"Vb ) 51c J "V
<( M 0 4_ œ † R&D c $ ˜0 J 1c
JA - >
JA - &0 00` !ˆ c c G I want to bring out the truth cN 6
ªÉÊ - I will give support.
JA - ok
ªÉÊ - dˆ p <! 9
!"V dˆ p !"V
gÉÆÌAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ
JA - < ,. "
(Emphasi s added)
The conversation is sent to FSL. The FSL confirms the voice is that
of the petitioner and also confirms the fact that it is not morphed or
the mobile was subject of hacking. Since it is a report of the FSL,
taking note of the same cannot lead to establishment of the guilt.
It has to be tested in evidence. Therefore, these matters would
undoubtedly require to be thrashed out in a full-blown trial.
11. This Court would have on the basis of what is considered
hereinabove rejected the petition. But the subsequent act to all
60
these is by the concerned Court where it takes cognizance of the
offences. The bald, laconic and cryptic order of the concerned
Court is what merits the partial entertainment of the petition. As
observed hereinabove, there are statements made by the
prosecution witnesses, there are statements made by the victim.
While cognizance of the offence, the concerned Court ought to have
applied its mind and then issued process.
12. The order of cognizance is quoted supra. The concerned
Courts would take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the
Cr.P.C. and under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. issue
summons/process to the accused. Therefore, it becomes germane
to notice Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. It reads as follows:
"204. Issue of process.--(1) If in the opinion of a
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be--
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the
attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he
thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought
or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he
has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having
jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the
accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution
witnesses has been filed.
61
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in
writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section
(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.
(4) When by any law for the time being in force any
process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be
issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid
within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the
complaint.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the
provisions of Section 87."
Section 204 requires sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, which would mean the Court has to examine existence of
sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and then proceed
to issue process. This act, undoubtedly requires application of
mind, on the part of the learned Magistrate or the Court of Sessions
as the case would be, as the provision itself mandates existence of
sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore, it can be only on
perusal of the material on record and consideration thereof, not an
order which depicts the Court to be a post office to the prosecution.
13. The interpretation of Section 204 and whether an order of
taking cognizance and issuance of process, needs to bear
application of mind or not, need not detain this Court for long or
delve deep into the matter. The answer lies in the judgments relied
62
on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. On the other
hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID has also
placed reliance upon plethora of judgments to contend that the
order of taking cognizance need not bear application of mind, when
it is being taken upon a Police report. The judgments so relied by
the learned counsel for respondent/CID, are as follows:
(i) STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. MOHD. KHALID & OTHERS
- (1995) 1 SCC 684 - Paras 78 & 81;
(ii) ANIL SARAN v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
- (1995) 6 SCC 142 - para 5;
(iii) BHAGAT RAM v. SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
- (2004) 11 SCC 622 - para 4;
(iv) AJITH KAMAR PALIT v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND
ANOTHER - 1962 SCC OnLine SC 80 - para 19;
(v) R.R. CHARI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- 1951 SCC 250 - paras 6 and 15;
(vi) JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER
- (2004) 4 SCC 432 - Para 10;
(vii) BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE (NCT OF
DELHI) & ANOTHER
- (2012) 5 SCC 424 - paras 13 & 17;
(viii) RAJENDRA RAJORIYA v. JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND
ANOTHER - (2018) 17 SCC 234 - para 16;
(ix) AJAY KUMAR PARMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
- (2012) 12 SCC 406 -Para 13;
63
(x) RASHMI KUMAR v. MAHESH KUMAR BHADA
- (1997) 2 SCC 397 - para 14 and
(xi) STATE OF BIHAR v. RAJENDRA AGARWALLA
- (1996)8 SCC 164 - para 5.
There can no qualm about the principles so laid down by the Apex
Court in the afore-quoted judgments. But, much water has flown
after the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent, by way of elucidation by the Apex Court, on the issue
of orders of cognizance and issuance of process. I deem it
appropriate to note the entire spectrum of law, right from 1951 till
this day, with regard to the interpretation by the Apex Court on
orders of taking cognizance and issuance of summons/process.
14(a). JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN1:-
"10. The contention urged is that though the trial court
was directed to consider the entire material on record including
the final report before deciding whether the process should be
issued against the appellant or not, yet the entire material was
not considered. From perusal of order passed by the Magistrate
it cannot be said that the entire material was not taken into
consideration. The order passed by the Magistrate taking
cognizance is a well-written order. The order not only refers to
the statements recorded by the police during investigation
which led to the filing of final report by the police and the
1
(2004) 4 SCC 432
64
statements of witnesses recorded by the Magistrate under
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code but also sets out with clarity
the principles required to be kept in mind at the stage of taking
cognizance and reaching a prima facie view. At this stage, the
Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient ground
exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is
well settled that notwithstanding the opinion of the
police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if
the material on record makes out a case for the said
purpose. The investigation is the exclusive domain of the
police. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area
exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this
stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is
adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only
at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of
issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not
required to record reasons. (Dy. Chief Controller of Imports &
Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 788].)"
(Emphasis supplied)
14(b). BHUSHAN KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)2:-
"11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
471] (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression "cognizance"
was explained by this Court as "it merely means 'become
aware of' and when used with reference to a court or a
Judge, it connotes 'to take notice of judicially'. It
indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes
judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating
proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been
committed by someone." It is entirely a different thing
from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition
precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the
Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and
not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the
2
(2012) 5 SCC 424
65
application of judicial mind to the averments in the
complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the
Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate
for supporting the conviction can be determined only at
the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is
sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is
empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the
Code.
... ... ...
18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar
Modi [(2009) 2 SCC 147 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679] this Court, in
para 23, held as under: (SCC p. 154)
"23. It is a settled legal position that at the
stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly
concerned with the allegations made in the
complaint or the evidence led in support of the
same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied
whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused."
19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed
by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground
that the summoning order was not a reasoned order."
(Emphasis supplied)
14(c). STATE OF GUJARAT v. AFROZ MOHAMMED
HASANFATTA3:-
"16. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process,
the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of
the same and the Magistrate is only to be satisfied that
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
3
(2019) 20 SCC 539
66
accused. It is fairly well settled that when issuing
summons, the Magistrate need not explicitly state the
reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused. Reliance was
placed upon Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Bhushan
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 : (2012) 2
SCC (Cri) 872] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 428-29,
paras 11-13)
"11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd. [Chief Enforcement Officer
v. Videocon International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492:
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471] (SCC p. 499, para 19) the
expression "cognizance" was explained by this Court as
"it merely means 'become aware of' and when used with
reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to take
notice of judicially'. It indicates the point when a court
or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a
view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence
said to have been committed by someone.' It is entirely
a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it
is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings
by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of
cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the
Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the
averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance.
At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not
whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the
conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at
the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for
proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for
issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code.
12. A "summons" is a process issued by a court
calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is
used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his
legal obligation to appear before the Magistrate as a
response to violation of law. In other words, the
summons will announce to the person to whom it is
directed that a legal proceeding has been started against
that person and the date and time on which the person
must appear in court. A person who is summoned is
legally bound to appear before the court on the given
67
date and time. Wilful disobedience is liable to be
punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for
contempt of court.
13. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for
issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the
opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence,
there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the
summons may be issued. This section mandates the
Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists
a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is
nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit
narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby
that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of
the summons issued."
(emphasis supplied)
... ... ....
21. In para 21 of Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul
Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , this Court has made a fine distinction
between taking cognizance based upon charge-sheet filed by
the police under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and a private complaint
under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC and held as under : (SCC p. 430)
"21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the
Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and
under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or
knowledge of commission of an offence. But under
Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before
him. The Code hence specifies that "a complaint of facts
which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the
complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the
commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take
cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The complaint
is simply to be rejected."
22. In summoning the accused, it is not necessary
for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of
the case and whether the materials collected is adequate
for supporting the conviction. The court is not required to
evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be
68
adopted for summoning the accused under Section 204
CrPC is not the same at the time of framing the charge.
For issuance of summons under Section 204 CrPC, the
expression used is "there is sufficient ground for
proceeding..."; whereas for framing the charges, the
expression used in Sections 240 and 246 IPC is "there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence...". At the stage of taking cognizance of the
offence based upon a police report and for issuance of
summons under Section 204 CrPC, detailed enquiry
regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not
required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the
police has filed charge-sheet along with the materials
thereon may be considered as sufficient ground for
proceeding for issuance of summons under Section 204
CrPC.
23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the
police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the
advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses
and other evidence collected by the police during the
investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the
necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in
compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation.
Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level
of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet
was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public
Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-
sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police
report along with the materials placed before it by the
police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate
has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the
Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case
of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report,
the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the
process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is
only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused.
Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon
subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police
report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is
69
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case
based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the
summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to
record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law
or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet
is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required
to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for
not taking it on file.
(Emphasis supplied)
14(d). SRI S.C.JAYACHANDRA v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA4:-
"12. I have perused the aforesaid judgments. By applying
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgments stated supra and on perusal of the case on hand, the
trial Court while taking cognizance and issuing process, has
passed the following order:
"The Karnataka Lokayuktha City Division, Bengaluru
have filed the charge sheet against the accused, that the
accused has made total assets of ₹2,27,13,936/-. And his
total expenditure is ₹1,71,95,040/-. The total of assets and
expenditure comes to ₹3,99,08,976/-. The income of the
accused and his family from all sources is ₹2,02,50,007/-.
The accused from 1-02-1985 to 18-12-2008 working as
Chief Engineer of Hemavathi Project, Goruru, Hassan as on
18-12-2008, has made disproportionate assets of total
₹1,96,58,969/- i.e., 97.08% and committed offence
punishable u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution has produced the fresh Sanction
dated 20-03-2019, authorization dated 17-12-2008, F.I.R.,
Source Report, P.F., Panchanama dated 23-12-2008,
Panchanama dated 18-12-2008, property documents,
Panchanama dated 18-12-2008 and other documents.
3. Perused the documents.
4
Criminal Revision Petition No.1479 of 2019/29 decided 18th May 2020
70
4. Found prima facie case, Cognizance is taken.
Register the case as Special Case, and issue summons to
accused returnable by 27-05-2019."
.... .... ....
14. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest dictum stated supra, here
in this case, the Lokayuktha Police filed the charge sheet and
the Trial Court while taking cognizance need not pass
detailed order and hence issuing process under Section
204 of Cr.P.C by taking cognizance under Section
190(a)(b) of Cr.P.C would attract. Therefore, there is no
illegality committed by the trial Court while issuing
process against the petitioner and it cannot be said that
there is no application of mind by the trial Court. Even
otherwise, the trial Court considered the documents and
proceeded to issue process after satisfaction of the same
Judge who passed the order of discharge on the earlier
occasion. Therefore, the arguments of learned senior counsel
Sri C.V. Nagesh cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I answer the
Point No.1 in favour of Lokayuktha Police and against the
accused.
.... .... ....
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is
dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial
against the accused and dispose of the mater in accordance
with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
14(e). PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA5:-
"C.5. Cognizance order and non-application of mind
76. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the
order of the Special Judge taking cognizance has not sufficiently
5
(2021) 19 SCC 62
71
demonstrated application of mind to the material placed before
him. To substantiate this contention, the appellant relied on the
decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate,
(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , Fakhruddin
Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478]
, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood
Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Sunil Bharti
Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687]
and Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone
Ltd. [Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone
Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 430 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806] The
respondent argued that this Court has made a distinction on
application of mind by the Judge for the purpose of taking
cognizance based on a police report on the one hand and a
private complaint under Section 200CrPC on the other, and that
the requirement of a demonstrable application of mind in the
latter case is higher. For this purpose, the counsel relied on this
Court's decisions in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC
424: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] and State of Gujarat v. Afroz
Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed
Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] .
... ... ....
85. Moreover, Kurian Joseph, J. writing for the two-Judge
Bench has clearly taken note of the difference between Sections
190(1)(a) and 190(1)(b) : (Mehmood Ul Rehman
case [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015)
12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , SCC p. 430, para 21)
"21. Under Section 190(1)(b)CrPC, the
Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and
under Section 190(1)(c)CrPC, he has the information
or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under
Section 190(1)(a)CrPC, he has only a complaint
before him. The Code hence specifies that "a
complaint of facts which constitute such offence".
Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not
disclose the commission of any offence, the
Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section
72
190(1)(a)CrPC. The complaint is simply to be
rejected."
86. In Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v.
State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Cri) 478] , a complaint was lodged before the Judicial
Magistrate alleging commission of offences under
Sections 240, 467, 468 and 471IPC. The Magistrate
directed the police to register the case and investigate it.
The Magistrate thus, instead of following the procedure
laid down under Section 200 or 202CrPC, ordered that
the matter be investigated and a report be submitted
under Section 173(2) of the Code. Based on the police
report, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. A two-
Judge Bench of this Court observed that the Magistrate
must apply his mind before taking cognizance of the
offence. However, no observation was made that the
cognizance order based on a police report needs to be
"well-reasoned". On the facts of the case, the Court held
that since the cognizance order was not placed before
the High Court, it did not have the opportunity to review
if the Magistrate had applied his mind while taking
cognizance. The matter was thus remanded back to the
High Court for it to peruse the documents and then
decide the Section 482 petition afresh.
87. It must be noted that the decisions in Pepsi Foods
Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5
SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] and Mehmood Ul
Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda,
(2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] arose in the
context of a private complaint. Though the decision in Sunil
Bharti Mittal [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 :
(2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] arose from a police report, it is
evident from the narration of facts in the earlier part of
this judgment that in that case, the charge-sheet had not
named the Chief Executive Officers of the Telecom
Companies as accused. The Magistrate, however,
furnished the reason that the CEO was an alter ego of the
Telecom Company which, as this Court noted in its
judgment was a "reverse application" of the alter ego
doctrine.
73
88. Similarly, the cognizance order in Fakhruddin
Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17
SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] was based on a police
report. However, this Court remanded the case back to the High
Court for fresh consideration of the validity of the cognizance
order and did not review the Magistrate's satisfaction before
issuing the cognizance order. Therefore, none of the above
judgments referred to support the contention of the appellant.
Though all the above judgments mention that the Magistrate
needs to apply his mind to the materials placed before him
before taking cognizance, they have been differentiated on facts
from the present case as unlike the present case where
cognizance was taken based on the SIT report, in those cases
cognizance was taken based on a complaint. The difference in
the standard of proof for application of mind with reference to
cognizance based on a complaint and police report has been
briefly discussed in Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul
Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] and Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin
Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4
SCC (Cri) 478] . A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Afroz
Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed
Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] laid
down the law on the difference of the standard of review of the
application of mind by the Judge while taking cognizance based
on a police report and a private complaint.
... ... ...
108.8. Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge
based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not
obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if
it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind
to the material."
(Emphasis supplied)
74
14(f). SRI RATAN BABULAL LATH v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA6:-
"The Apex Court in terms of clause (viii) of the
aforesaid conclusions holds that since cognizance is
taken based on a police report and not a private
complaint, it is not obligatory for the Judge to issue a
completely reasoned order if it otherwise appears that
the Judge has applied his mind to the material."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. The Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH RAM supra holds
that the Magistrate is not expected to consider entire material while
taking cognizance; it should be a well written order and bear
application of mind. The Magistrate is not required to advert to
whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. In the case of
BHUSHAN KUMAR supra, the Apex Court again reiterates that if
cognizance is taken under Section 190 of the Code, application of
judicial mind to the averments of the complaint is necessary. The
Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding in the matter or not and whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction. In AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA
supra the Apex Court holds that it is not necessary to pass a
6
Criminal Petition No.1367 of 2022 decided on 10th May 2022
75
detailed order when the Magistrate or the concerned Court has
taken cognizance on a final report. The same goes with the order of
the coordinate Bench in S.C.JAYACHANDRA supra. The Apex
Court in the case of PRADEEP S.WODEYAR at para 108.8 supra
holds that the Court is not obliged to pass a fully reasoned order if
it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind.
This Court in RATAN BABULAL LATH's case considers all these
judgments and holds that the order of taking cognizance did bear
application of mind. The aforesaid are the judgments relied on by
the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID.
The subsequent elucidation:
16. The Apex Court, in the case of SACHIN GARG v. STATE
OF U.P.7, has held as follows:
"20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing
summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a
prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the
magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the
case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of
law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749].
The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 82
76
the background of the case in rather longish detail but
reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage
of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a
Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not
necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the
allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to
the offences for which the appellant has been summoned
for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought to have been
resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given
criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or
phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. The
learned Magistrate here failed to apply his mind in issuing
summons and the High Court also failed to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent
abuse of the power of the Criminal Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court has held that while it is true that at the stage of
issuing summons, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a
prim facie case for taking cognizance. The duty is to record that
there is sufficient ground. The Apex Court observes that learned
Magistrate's order issuing summons records the background of the
case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic
manner. Therefore, the Apex Court was holding that satisfaction of
the Magistrate to issue summons was imperative. Satisfaction is
discernible only if the order would bear application of mind. The
77
Apex Court, again, in the case of SHARIF AHMED v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH8 has held as follows:
"6. We would like to elaborate on certain aspects,
as submission of the chargesheet is for taking cognisance
and summoning of the accused by the Magistrate, which
stages are of considerable importance and significance.
... .... ....
14. In the context of the present issue, it would be
apt to refer to Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code,
along with the provisions relating to contents of charge,
namely, Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218 of the Code,
which read as under:
"190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.--(1)
Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class
specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section
(2), may take cognizance of any offence--
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge,
that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower
any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance
under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try.
xxxxxx
204. Issue of process.--(1) If in the opinion of a
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears
to be--
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for
the attendance of the accused, or
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 726
78
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he
thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to
be brought or to appear at a certain time before
such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction
himself) some other Magistrate having
jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued
against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of
the prosecution witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint
made in writing, every summons or warrant issued
under sub-section
(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such
complaint.
(4) When by any law for the time being in force
any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process
shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees
are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate
may dismiss the complaint.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
affect the provisions of Section 87.
15. On the submission of the police report, Dablu
Kujur (supra) refers to an earlier decision of this Court
in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police10, and
discusses the power and the role of the Magistrate when
he receives the police report and the options available to
him, in the following words:
"14. When such a Police Report concludes that an
offence appears to have been committed by a particular
person or persons, the Magistrate has three options
: (i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the
offence and issue process, (ii) he may direct further
investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 and
require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he
may disagree with the report and discharge the accused
or drop the proceedings. If such Police Report concludes
that no offence appears to have been committed, the
Magistrate again has three options : (i) he may accept
the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may
79
disagree with the report and taking the view that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take
cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he
may direct further investigation to be made by the police
under sub-section (3) of Section 156."
It is in this context that the provisions of Sections 190
and 204 of the Code become important. Clause (a) of Section
190 states that the Magistrate can take cognisance of an
offence on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such
offence. Clause (b) relates to a situation where the Magistrate
receives a police report carrying such facts, i.e., facts which
constitute such offence. In Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar11 this
Court referred to the options available to the Magistrate on
how to proceed in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, and
held:
"11... The position is, therefore, now well settled
that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2)
a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police
report is to the effect that no case is made out against
the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the
statements of the witnesses examined by the police
during the investigation and take cognizance of the
offence complained of and order the issue of process to
the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a
Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the
investigating officer gives an opinion that the
investigation has made out a case against the accused.
The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by
the investigating officer and independently apply his
mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and
take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his
powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of
process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in
such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in
Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance
of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to
him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also.
(See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2
SCC 132 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 306 : AIR 1989 SC 885].)
12. The informant is not prejudicially affected
when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to
proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides
that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding
80
further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that
there is material for proceeding against some and there
are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the
informant would certainly be prejudiced as the first
information report lodged becomes wholly or partially
ineffective. This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of
Police held that where the Magistrate decides not to take
cognizance and to drop the proceeding or takes a view
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against
some of the persons mentioned in the first information
report, notice to the informant and grant of opportunity
of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As
indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for
issue of a notice in that regard.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that application of mind is imperative if taking
of cognizance and issuing of process is an action that the concerned
Court would take. The Apex Court considers all earlier judgments,
all of which are relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent/CID. In the later judgment, the Apex Court in the case
of VIKAS CHANDRA v. STATE OF U.P. UTTAR PRADESH.9 has
held as follows:
"14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next
question to be considered is whether a summons issued
by a Magistrate can be interfered with in exercise of the
power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. In the decisions
in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pepsi
Foods Ltd.'s case (supra) this Court held that a petition
filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing an order
summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot be
any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for
9
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534
81
exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective
satisfaction "on the ground for proceeding further" while
exercising the power to consider the legality of a
summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty
of the Court to look into the question as to whether the
learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an
opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for
proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons
to face the trial for the offence concerned. In this context,
we think it appropriate to state that one should understand that
'taking cognizance', empowered under Section 190, Cr. P.C.,
and 'issuing process', empowered under Section 204, Cr. P.C.,
are different and distinct. (See the decision in Sunil Bharti
Mittal v. C.B.I.).
... ... ....
16. In the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, this Court held that the settled
position for summoning of an accused is that the Court
has to see the prima facie evidence. This Court went on
to hold that the 'prima facie evidence' means the
evidence sufficient for summoning the accused and not
the evidence sufficient to warrant conviction. The inquiry
under Section 202, Cr. P.C., is limited only to ascertain whether
on the material placed by the complainant a prima facie case
was made out for summoning the accused or not.
17. In an earlier decision in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi, this Court laid down certain conditions
whereunder a complaint can be quashed invoking the power
under Section 482, Cr. P.C., thus:--
"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against
the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are
patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent
person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused;
82
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in
issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based
either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly
irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint
by legally competent authority and the like."
... ... ...
20. As per the impugned judgment the High Court went
on to consider and held thus:--
"As per mandate of this Section, there must be
explicit or implicit abetment or some overt act indicative
or suggestive of fact that some instigation was given for
committing suicide and the applicant was having an
interest in it. Nothing has surfaced, which may reflect on
the mindset of the applicant that he ever intended the
consequence that the deceased would commit suicide
and with that view in mind, he stopped payment of
salary. Had it been the actual position then obviously the
suicide note must have whispered about that particular
aspect or it would have at least alluded to that situation,
but on careful perusal of the suicide note it explicit that
the deceased himself was bent upon committing suicide
in case the salary was not drawn in his favour. But under
circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the
applicant was conscious of that position and knowing
the same situation he insisted that he would not pay the
salary in question. The trial court, however, ignoring all
these legal aspects took cognizance of the offence by
rejecting the final report submitted by the Investigating
Officer and issued process against the applicant by way
of summoning. Resultantly, this application is allowed.
Criminal proceedings of impugned order dated
05.04.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No. 1478 of
2012, Vikas v. Ram Babu, Case Crime No. C-2 of 2005,
under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Alhaganj, District
Shahjahanpur by which the applicant has been
summoned to face the trial is hereby quashed."
(Emphasis supplied)
83
The Apex Court, again, in the case of JM LABORATORIES V.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH10 has held as follows:
"8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal
appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX
Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private
Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", we have observed
thus:
"33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except
recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are
recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.
34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the
following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra):
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring
only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint
to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in
the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant
to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not
that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording
of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence
brought on record and may even himself put questions to
the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to
find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise
and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed
by all or any of the accused."
35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has
been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning
the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to
the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This
Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the
nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof
10
2025 SCC online SC 208
84
and as to whether that would be sufficient for
proceeding against the accused. It has been held that
the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the
accused.
36. The said law would be consistently following by this
Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil
Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC
609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015)
12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435.
37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us
(Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar
Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1383 (supra), has observed thus:
"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty
formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to
whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or
not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons
are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is
a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the
order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this
respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9, which
reads thus:
"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals
with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal
proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it
may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it
has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration
of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of
the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of
inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process
against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal
of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought
not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has
been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused
merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a
conviction.
85
53. However, the words "sufficient ground for
proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply suggest that
an opinion is to be formed only after due application of
mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against
the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to
be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case against the
accused, though the order need not contain detailed
reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the
reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."
39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the
case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra).
40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no
reasons in support of the order of the issuance of
process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that there
was no such order passed at all. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has
presumed that there was an order of issuance of process.
We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law.
The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of SANJAY DUTT V. STATE OF
HARYANA11 has held as follows:
"15. When jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint
petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of
the CrPC, the Court concerned should remain vigilant &
apply its mind carefully before taking cognizance of a
complaint of the present nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
11
2025 SCC OnLine SC 32
86
The Apex Court, in all the aforesaid judgments, has followed the
judgment in the case of SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL V. CBI12. Since
the Three Judge Bench decision has been quoted in all the aforesaid
judgments and followed, I deem it appropriate to notice the same
at this juncture. The elucidation of the Apex Court reads as follows:
"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with
the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal
proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may
be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been
transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the
materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the
complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if
any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in
respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.
... ... ...
53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these
words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for
proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be
set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused,
12
(2015)4 SCC 609
87
though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the
order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex
facie incorrect."
(Emphasis supplied)
On a coalensce of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court as
quoted hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is, that the
order of taking of cognizance and issuance of process should bear
application of mind. Section 190(1)(a) deals with cognizance being
taken on a complaint which would be a private complaint presented
before the concerned Court. Section 190(1)(b) deals with
cognizance taken on a police report which would be a final
report/charge sheet filed before the concerned Court. Therefore,
cognizance can be taken only under Section 190 of the CrPC.
Section 204 deals with issue of process.
17. After the concerned Court takes cognizance under Section
190 of the Cr.P.C., process is issued under Section 204 of the
Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) thereof mandates that, if in the opinion of
the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, it shall issue process. Therefore, the words
88
'there is sufficient ground' assumes all importance. The necessity
of recording reasons for existence of sufficient ground is thus
imperative and those reasons are discernible only, if they are
recorded in writing, which would reflect application of mind, on the
part of the Court taking cognizance and issuing summons.
Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner are all overwhelming to the judgments relied on
by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID, as all the
judgments that are quoted hereinabove, fallen from the arsenal of
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are of 2024 and
2025, and they consider the very issue as against the judgments
which are little earlier cited by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent/CID and the law as laid down by the Apex Court is that
order of taking cognizance and issuing summons must bear
application of mind.
18. With the law being thus, I now deem it appropriate to
re-notice the order taking cognizance in the case at hand. It reads
as follows:
"04-07-2024
89
Case called out. Learned Special Public Prosecutor
present.
Heard and perused the office note and also perused the
police report and the documents submitted along with the police
report including complaint, FIR, statements of witnesses and
the documents.
On perusal of police report and documents produced
along with police, there are prima facie material placed records
so as to proceed against the accused and also to issue process
against the accused.
Therefore, on being satisfied with prima facie
materials placed records, exercising the powers U/s
190(1) (b) r/w Section 193 of CrPC, cognizance is taken
for the offences punishable Under Section 8 of POCSO
Act, 2012, Section 354(A), 204 and 214 r/w Sec.37 of
IPC.
Office is directed to register this case as Special
C.c. in criminal register.
Office to attend regarding compliance U/s 35(1) of
POCSO Act i.e., securing statement U/s 164 of CrPC,
Medical report, FSL Report, Property from the
complainant Police.
Issue summons to the accused persons R/by
15-07-2024."
(Emphasis added)
The Court observes 'perused the charge sheet and all the
documents'. On perusal of the same, the Court is satisfied that
prima facie case has been committed by the accused as alleged.
90
Therefore, cognizance is taken under Section 190(1)(b) and
summons issued ostensibly under Section 204 of the CrPC. The
order of taking cognizance and issuing of process does not bear
even a semblance of application of mind. It runs completely
counter to the necessity under Section 190(1)(b) or Section 204 of
the Cr.P.C. as elucidated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
judgments.
19. The learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID
submits that in 80% of cases the Courts would take cognizance in
the same manner while that would not impress this Court to dismiss
the petition and permit perpetration of irregularity or illegality by
the concerned Court, just because it has become a habit to take
cognizance and issue summons in this manner. Not for nothing is
the elucidation by the Apex Court in regard to existence of sufficient
grounds and application of judicial mind. The Court is expected to
record reasons for taking of cognizance. Though the reasons need
not be so elaborate when it records framing of charges or
conviction, nonetheless, it must bear application of mind to set
further proceedings in motion, as taking of cognizance or issuance
91
of process has some judicial sanctity. It cannot be frolicsome act on
the part of the learned Magistrate who would take cognizance and
issue summons.
20. If the afore-quoted order of taking of cognizance is
considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the
Apex Court as to the requirement of application of mind, the order
of cognizance impugned, inter alia, would be rendered
unsustainable, while it is not the same with regard to the other
submissions. The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner is that there is no indication of the cognizance being
taken against a particular person. It is his submission that Sections
204 and 214 of the IPC do not get attracted against the petitioner
at all. Be those submissions as they are. In the light of the order of
taking cognizance being found to be blatant non-application of mind
and the resultant obliteration, I do not find any necessity to
consider the submissions qua the offences at this stage. Suffice it
so say, that the learned Sessions Judge shall now look into the
entire material that is before him and pass necessary orders on the
final report, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of
92
the order. It is needless to observe that the order should bear
application of mind and application of mind in an order is
discernible, only if reasons are recorded in writing, failing which,
the order would depict an inscrutable face of the sphinx.
21. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court
dated 4-07-2024 passed in Crime No.9 of 2024 (Special
C.C.No.1283 of 2024) qua accused No.1 stands
obliterated.
(iii) The crime, the investigation and the final report, all
remain intact.
(iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the
concerned Court to pass appropriate orders on the final
report so placed before it by the CID, bearing in mind
the observations made in the course of the order.
(v) It is made clear that this Court has not answered any of
the contentions so advanced by both the learned senior
counsel, except the submission with regard to the order
of taking cognizance.
(vi) All other contentions shall remain open. The petitioner
is at liberty to avail all such remedy, as is available in
law, at the appropriate stage before the appropriate
forum.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18538 OF 2024:
22. The subject petition is preferred by accused Nos.2, 3 and
4 in Spl.C.C.1283 of 2024. The companion petition is of the accused
No.1. The complaint so filed is common, only the allegations are
different against these accused. They are for the offences
punishable under Sections 204 and 214 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
23. The order of taking of cognizance qua all the petitioners
is common. The order of cognizance is quoted in the companion
petition and extensively dealt with. Therefore, for the very reasons
rendered in W.P.No.15522 of 2024, the present petition also
deserves to follow suit.
24. The order of cognizance being common and the same
being found fault with in the companion petition, no further reason
need be assigned separately in the case at hand.
25. Therefore, for the reasons so rendered in W.P.No.15522
of 2024, the subject petition also deserves to succeed in part, with
the same order becoming applicable to the case at hand.
26. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court
dated 4-07-2024 passed in Crime No.9 of 2024 (Special
C.C.No.1283 of 2024) qua accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 also
stands obliterated.
(iii) The crime, the investigation and the final report, all
remain intact.
(iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the
concerned Court to pass appropriate orders on the final
report so placed before it, by the CID, bearing in mind
the observations made in the course of the order.
(v) It is made clear that this Court has not answered any of
the contentions so advanced by both the learned senior
counsel, except the submission with regard to the order
of taking cognizance.
(vi) All other contentions shall remain open. The petitioners
are at liberty to avail all such remedy, as is available in
law, at the appropriate stage, before the appropriate
forum.
Consequently, pending applications if any in both the
petitions, shall also stand disposed.
___________sd/___________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Bkp/CT:SS
