Dismissed

Sri Manjunath S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2021CRL.P/4607/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking a direction for re-investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The Court held that since the trial was at the stage of conclusion of evidence, the petition was not maintainable and the trial should conclude. The order rejecting re-investigation was found to have no error.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition seeking re-investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is dismissed. The trial is allowed to conclude.

Sri Manjunath S Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4607 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI MANJUNATH S S/O SIDDAPPA B R/AT NO.25, 1^ST FLOOR ‘SANGVI’, 2^ND CROSS, ASHRAMA ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU-560111

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VIVEK S., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

KRISHNAMURTY @ MURTY S/O. LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.62, 3^RD CROSS KASHINAGARA YELACHENAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 078

¶14

V. VENKATESH @ DINESH

¶15

¶16

S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28, 8^TH CROSS SPOORTY NAGARA OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD YELACHENAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 078

¶17

RANGASWAMY B.R. S/O. LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28, 8^TH CROSS SPOORTY NAGARA OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD YELACHENAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 078

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP. FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION FOR REINVESTIGATION U/S 173(8) OF CR.P.C., MAY ORDER TO DISMISS THE ORDER OF XLIV ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

¶24

order dated 25^th March, 2017 passed by the XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, on an application

¶25

¶26

filed by the prosecution under Section 156(3) read with Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.28167 of 2014 and seeking consequential direction for re-investigation or further

¶27

investigation by an independent investigative agency.

¶28

Heard Sri Vivek S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri A. Lourdu Mariyappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶29

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶30

On 11-06-2014, the petitioner lodges a complaint with the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station against respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused persons and several others. On registration of the complaint, the Police registered FIR in Crime No.224 of 2014, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet. The facts that led to filing of complaint against the accused was that between

¶31

¶32

01-04-2014 and 31-05-2014, Valve man one Sri Krishnamurthy

¶33

respondent No.2, an employee of the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (‘the Board’ for short) came to the house of the petitioner in his absence, threatened his wife to give money for release of water to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that Krishnamurthy again came on 26-05-2014 and demanded Rs.500/- for releasing water. The petitioner claims to have sought for a receipt for paying bribe for release of water. This conversion became a squabble between the petitioner and the accused and on the same day, based on the squabble, a complaint was registered by the petitioner.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that, one Sri O.Manjunath, the local Corporator called the Police to release Mr.Krishnamurthy without registration of FIR. Pursuant to which, the complaint was closed without informing the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation against Mr. Krishnamurthy before the competent authority at the Board on 28-05-2014, to take departmental action against the act of

¶35

¶36

Mr. Krishnamurthy in demanding and cheating the public and the Department. It is the further claim of the petitioner that on the same day, supporters of the accused - Mr. Krishnamurthy, one Dinesh and Rangaswamy with their associates came to the house of the petitioner in his absence, threatened the wife of the petitioner to pay bribe. The petitioner claims that this was observed by the neighbouring residents of the same locality. On 07-06-2014, the petitioner further claims that the local Corporator came with his associates to the petitioner’s house and threatened him with dire consequences. It is after the said incident, the petitioner gave a written complaint which becomes a FIR on 11-06-2014, before the Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station.

¶37

These proceedings have gone on and the Police have also filed their final report and it is now registered as a criminal case in C.C.No.28167 of 2014. During all these proceedings and after the charge sheet being filed, an application is filed by the petitioner before the trial Court under Section 156(3) of the

¶38

¶39

Cr.P.C. read with Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. seeking a

¶40

direction for re-investigation or further investigation on the ground that the Investigating Officer has filed a false charge sheet without conducting proper investigation and also colluding directly or indirectly with influential people during the investigation. This application was considered by the learned Magistrate and was turned down by her order dated 25-03-2017. It is this order rejecting the application that is called in question in this criminal petition.

¶41

The submission of the learned counsel appearing the

¶42

petitioner is that, the Police have not conducted proper investigation and have filed a false report before the Court which is now hearing the matter. The final report/charge sheet was filed by the Police on 21-10-2014. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner on realizing that it is a case for reinvestigation, when the trial was set in motion on the basis of the charge sheet that was filed by the police and on rejection of

¶43

¶44

the said application, the petitioner has preferred the subject criminal petition seeking a direction for re-investigation.

¶45

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., appearing for respondent No.1 - State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the charge sheet was filed about 7 years ago and 4 years prior to filing of the Criminal Petition. The petitioner has participated in those proceedings and when he felt that he could not establish the allegations against the accused, sought for reinvestigation. The learned counsel in unison would submit that the criminal petition be dismissed, since trial is on the verge of completion.

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶47

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The FIR against the accused was for offences punishable under Section

¶48

¶49

506 read with Section 34 of the IPC which is for criminal

¶50

intimidation. Police after investigation have filed their final report/charge sheet on 21-10-2014 for offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The charge sheet was filed 4 years prior to the criminal petition and 7 years ago as on date. The matter is set for trial after filing of final report and recording of evidence of the witnesses is also concluded. What has stalled further proceedings before the criminal court is pendency of the present criminal petition. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings as also on merits of the matter, as is pleaded in the petition, I do not find any merit in the criminal petition or find any error committed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for re-investigation into the matter by an independent investigative agency. The trial will have to be concluded. The petitioner or the accused will not be rendered remediless once the trial concludes and an order is passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶51

¶52

In the aforesaid circumstances and at the present

¶53

stage of the proceedings before the trial Court, I do not find any merit to entertain the subject criminal petition which seek reinvestigation into the matter. Therefore, the criminal petition which lacks merit, is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

nvj CT:MJ

Sri Manjunath S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivasankaran Krishnan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S August Ventures Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Ramesh N @ Bbmp Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mangalpady Naresh Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bharathi Vs the State of Karnataka