Criminal petition sought quashing of proceedings on double jeopardy grounds, claiming a second complaint followed a closed first one. Court held the second complaint addressed continuing acts and demand for money absent from the first. Dismissed.
Petition quashing criminal proceedings dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101021/2020
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SHANKAR, S/O. CHANDRU NAIK AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: T.V. REPORTER & LABOURER R/O. V 2 NAMMA T. V. CHANNEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY BASTI POST KAYAKNI TQ: BHATKAL DIST:UTTARKANNADA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUMANGALA A. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR R/O. GOVT. HOSPITAL BHATKAL TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARKANNADA NOW AT: MARUTI NAGAR, DEVI PRASAD BHATKAL 581 320
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 2 :
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN BHATKAL TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.106/2020 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDE SECTION 353, 504, 384 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), ADDL. JMFC COURT, BHATKAL UTTARA KANNADA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.106/2020 on the file of the 1st respondent Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 384 of the IPC, which crime was informed at the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, has sought for quashing of the said criminal proceedings.
to the first respondent is that, she has been working as Taluka Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Bhatkal, since 1½ years prior to the date of her
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 3 :
complaint, which is dated 25.07.2020. She has stated that, she has been honestly discharging her duties including treating Covid patients.
That being the case, on 29.03.2020, in the morning, accused called her over the telephone and stated to her that there are serious allegations against her and attempted to threaten her. She disconnected the telephone call since she was in a meeting in the Assistant Commissioner’s office. After the meeting, when she called his number, the accused told her that he is the editor of a private channel called V2 Channel and informed the complainant that she has been misusing the services of Primary Health Centre’s Medical Officer and not utilizing the staff of her hospital and that he also expected her to reveal all the details and information about the Covid patients. When she replied stating that she cannot disclose those information of Covid patients in view of the order of the State
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 4 :
Government, he threatened her that he would broadcast in his media i.e., V2 Channel about her alleged failure in handling the Covid cases. She has also stated that, without even understanding that she was a lady Medical Officer, he abused her and insulted her. In that regard, she had lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent Police on 29.03.2020. The complainant has further stated that, despite lodging the said complaint, the accused started visiting the fever clinic, which was opened in the car shed of the Taluka Hospital at Bhatkal and approached her several times while she was on duty and stating that he would broadcast a special programme on Covid warriors, and started demanding a sum of `1,00,000/- from her. She says that, he also threatened that, in case if she fails to meet his demand for money, he would make false allegation against her and broadcast them in his media and defame her in public. The complainant has stated, thus he started
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 5 :
obstructing her from discharging her official duty. He further continued visiting her and reduced his demand from 1,00,000/- to 50,000/- or `60,000/- and also threatened her, in case if she fails to pay any amount, he would also broadcast about her character in the media.
The said complaint was registered in the respondent police station Crime No.106/2020 against the accused for the alleged offences.
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 6 :
the complainant lodging the same complaint once again will not sustain and that it amounts to double jeopardy. She also submits that, complaisant in her first complaint dated 29.03.2020 has not mentioned anything about the alleged demand for money said to have been made by the accused, whereas the second complaint dated 25.07.2020 is an improvement. She further says that the accused also has given a police complaint on 29.03.2020, against the present complainant.
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 7 :
submitted that, both the complaints are for different cause of actions, as such, the question of double jeopardy does not arise. He submitted that, since the demand for money is made subsequent to the alleged first complaint dated 29.03.2020, there was no allegation about the said demand in the first complaint. He also submits that the present petitioner (accused) has himself filed a private complaint against the present complainant.
and the submissions made from both side, it is an admitted fact that, prior to the present complaint, which is dated 25.07.2020, the present complainant had filed a complaint against the present petitioner on 29.03.2020, a copy of which the petitioner has produced at document No.3. In the said complaint, the complainant has spoken about she receiving a telephone call from the accused on the very same day i.e., on 29.03.2020, while
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 8 :
she was in the meeting in the Assistant Commissioner’s office and after she returning, when she called him, the accused alleged to have threatened her making false allegations. In the said complaint, the complainant has also stated that the accused has been causing obstruction for her discharging of official duty as a doctor.
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 9 :
Based upon that, as could be seen from document No.5, the 1st respondent police have given an endorsement to the complainant stating that the accused has given an undertaking that he would not obstruct her further and he has been properly convinced by them, as such, the complaint stands closed.
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 10 :
offence of the alleged demand of money, the second complaint would not sustain.
The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that, a perusal of both the complaints, which are placed before me would go to show that, in the first complaint dated 29.03.2020, the complainant has confined herself in complaining about the alleged telephone call said to have been made by the accused to her and threatening her over the phone. Except the said allegation, with respect to a particular single incident of 29.03.2020, there is no mentioning of any other incident alleged to have taken place including the accused demanding for any money from her or he repeatedly visiting the fever clinic headed by the complainant and obstructing her in discharging her lawful duty as a doctor. A reading of the complaint dated 25.07.2020 would make it clear that, though the complainant has referred to her earlier
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 11 :
complaint dated 29.03.2020, she has stated “in spite of the same” and continued the further alleged act of the accused in demanding the alleged amount of `1,00,000/- and psychologically obstructing her in discharging her lawful duty as a doctor and also visiting her hospital repeatedly and further demanding reduced sum of the amount demanded by him. In the very same complaint, at the end, she has stated that, the acts of the accused has been continuing from the month of March.
Thus, she has made it very clear that the act of the accused in approaching her over phone or in person and obstructing her from discharging her lawful duty as a Government servant and demanding for some amount has been a continuing affair subsequent to 29.03.2020, till she filed the complaint on 25.07.2020, after consulting her superior in the department.
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 12 :
Therefore, when the second complaint is totally on different cause of action, which are said to be a continuing cause of action, it cannot be held that the first complaint and second complaint are with respect to the very same incident, as such, the second complaint amounts to double jeopardy.
from both side would go to show that there are materials for the Investigating Officer to proceed further
CRL.P.No.101021/2020
: 13 :
in the complaint in question i.e., the complaint dated 25.07.2020, which is challenged in this petition. As such, I do not find it as a instance where this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ORDER
Petition is dismissed .
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2020
does not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
gab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second complaint filed after the accused allegedly initiated a continuing course of conduct amounts to double jeopardy.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in this case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar
The State of Karnataka
Savita Kamath
H.B. Prabhakara Swamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
