Allowed

Mr Madhava Koodlu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021WP/9535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed criminal proceedings against a Sub-Inspector. The court held that taking cognizance without the mandatory sanction of the Competent Authority required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, was illegal and unsustainable, relying on D.Devaraja.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the criminal proceedings were quashed; the matter was remitted to the Competent Authority to consider and grant sanction within 8 weeks.

Mr Madhava Koodlu Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.9535/2018 (GM - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. MADHAVA KOODLU S/O. LATE PANJI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.-574 233

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶13

DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALORE-D.K. - 575 001 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶14

MR. CHITRASHEKARA S/O. KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PROP: SUVARNA DIGITAL STUDIO MADANTHYAR

¶15

¶16

BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. - 574 233

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI. P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.NO.2/2017 [NOW NUMBERED AS SPL.C.NO.17/2018] PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 506 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER SUBMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question

¶23

the proceedings in P.C.No.2/017 now numbered as Spl.C.C.No.17 of 2017 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Heard Shri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Namitha Mahesh

¶25

¶26

B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Shri P.P. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the materials on record.

¶27

Sans details, the facts as detailed in the petition are as follows:-

¶28

The 2^nd respondent registers a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 against the petitioner and three other accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Criminal Court before whom the complaint was registered ordered investigation and on investigation and evidence, the trial Court opined that proceedings against all others would not warrant and takes cognizance only against the petitioner for offences punishable under the aforementioned provisions and thereafter issued summons to the petitioner. It is at that

¶29

¶30

juncture the petitioner has approached this Court in the subject writ petition.

¶31

The complainant was a photographer and

¶32

proprietor of Suvarna Digital Studio at Madanthyar, Belthangady Taluk. Accused No.2 one Rathnakara filed a complaint against the complainant before Punjalkatte Police Station alleging that the complainant had written certain anonymous letter which was not in good taste.

¶33

Acting upon the said complaint of Rathnakara, Punjalkatte Police summoned the 2^st respondent on 24.07.2010 at about 11 a.m. The petitioner questioned the complainant regarding the alleged letter and confronted the letter to him to get a reply that he had not written the said letter at all to Rathnakar. The petitioner appears to have told him that he would break his limbs and after recording the statement the complainant left the Police Station.

¶34

¶35

It is alleged that the complainant again was

¶36

summoned to the Police Station by the petitioner on 25-07-2010 on the basis of a complaint filed by accused

¶37

No.3 Ms. Supreetha and her father, accused No.4/Sanjeeva Bangera. On the basis of the said complaint, again the petitioner questioned the complainant and the allegation is that the complainant was made to stand and Ms. Supreetha was made to sit inside the chamber. The letter was again confronted to the complainant and it is alleged that the petitioner used filthy language against the complainant. It also transpires that the petitioner assaulted the complainant on his left cheek in the presence of Ms. Supreetha and his another friend and threatened him to place him inside the lock up.

¶38

In the backdrop of afore-narrated facts the

¶39

complainant registers private complaint against the petitioner in P.C.No.2 of 2017 before the Principal

¶40

¶41

Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. This was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Police after recording statements of all the persons involved in the case and coming to conclude that a false case had been filed against the petitioner filed a ‘B’ report before the Court. The complainant filed his objections to the ‘B’ report contending that the Police have not properly investigated the matter and have filed a false ‘B’ report. On the protest petition being again considered, the Court takes cognizance against the petitioner alone and not others. It is at that stage, the petitioner approached this Court in the subject writ petition.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶43

would submit that the petitioner being a public servant sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. read with the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules’) was not taken and cognizance being

¶44

¶45

taken without sanction for such prosecution is vitiated is his emphatic submission. He would further submit that if sanction is not accorded for such prosecution, it would go to the root of the matter and no other ground need be considered.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶47

respondents would though seek to justify the action, again dispute the fact that sanction was accorded in terms of the Rules.

¶48

The issue is with regard to sanction to be taken

¶49

prior to taking cognizance and setting the criminal law in motion. It is germane to notice the Rules. The Rules that are germane for consideration of the lis read as

¶50

follows:-

¶51

6. Procedure and powers of Court . - (1) A victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered nonGovernmental Organisation or a public

¶52

¶53

person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of an offence of violation of human rights, while acting under the colour of his office as a public servant:

¶54

Provided a complaint on behalf of the victim may be filed by a Non-Governmental Organisation or a public person only with prior authorisation on affidavit by the victim.

¶55

(2) The Court on receipt of such complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in the Code:

¶56

Provided that the Superintendent of Police shall complete such investigation as far as possible within fifteen days, failing which he shall report the progress of the investigation to the Court concerned with the

¶57

¶58

case diaries and seek extension of time for further investigation and complete the investigation within the stipulated time.

¶59

(3) If after the investigation, the investigating officer reports to the Court that no offence is made out, the Court shall serve the complainant with a notice for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

¶60

(4) If on the basis of police report or the evidence collected during preliminary inquiry, the Court is of the view that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused in appropriate cases, the Court shall forward a copy of the complaint along with the material evidence collected during investigating or inquiry, as the case may be, to the Competent Authority for its perusal for the purpose of grant of sanction for the prosecution of the accused.

¶61

¶62

(5) The Competent Authority shall dispose off the request for sanction within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of communication from the Court.

¶63

(6) The trial before the Court shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions regarding sessions trial prescribed under the Code.

¶64

(7) The Court shall try the offence on day-to-day basis.

¶65

(emphasis added)

¶66

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules would depict

¶67

that the Court on receipt of a complaint shall either order an investigation into the offence by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry. Sub-rule (4) thereof depicts that if on the basis of police report or the evidence collected during preliminary enquiry, the Court is of the view that there is sufficient material to record

¶68

¶69

and proceed against the accused in appropriate cases, the Court shall forward a copy of the complaint along with the material evidence collected during investigation and inquiry to the Competent Authority for its perusal and for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecuting the accused.

¶70

The allegation against the petitioner is for offences punishable under Section 506 of the IPC r/w Section 24 of the Human Rights Act, all for allegations while discharge of his official duty. Therefore, either under the IPC or under the aforesaid provisions of Rules, sanction for such prosecution is imperative.

¶71

Admittedly, in the case at hand, no sanction is accorded by the Competent Authority which would permit initiation or continuance of criminal trial before the competent Court. Therefore, the order taking cognizance on 28-08-2017 would be rendered unsustainable on the short ground of want of sanction

¶72

¶73

for such prosecution. The issue also stands covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.DEVARAJA v. OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN – (Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020 decided on 18-06-2020) wherein it has been held as follows:-

¶74

"68. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a police officer, for any act related to the discharge of an official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The requirement of sanction from the government, to prosecute would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by initiation of criminal action, from which he would be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. At the same time, if the policeman has committed a wrong, which constitutes a criminal offence and renders him liable for

¶75

¶76

prosecution, he can be prosecuted with sanction from the appropriate government.

¶77

77. It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceedings is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court.

¶78

78. There is also no reason to suppose that sanction will be withheld in case of prosecution, where there is substance in a complaint and in any case if, in such a case, sanction is refused, the aggrieved complainant can take recourse to law. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the

¶79

¶80

records of the instant case clearly reveal that the complainant alleged of police excesses while the respondent was in custody, in the course of investigation in connection with Crime No.12/2012. Patently the complaint pertains to an act under colour of duty.

¶81

79. Significantly, the High Court has by its judgment and order observed "it is well recognized principle of law that sanction is a legal requirement which empowers the Court to take a cognizance so far as the public servant is concerned. If at all the sanction is absolute requirement, if takes cognizance it becomes illegal therefore an order too overcome any illegality the duty of the magistrate is that even at any subsequent stages if the sanction is raised it is the duty of the Magistrate to consider"."

¶82

In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the Rules, sanction being absolute requirement of law, taking cognizance without sanction becomes illegal and any further proceedings taken

¶83

¶84

would also be rendered illegal. Though further

¶85

proceedings are stalled by an order of this Court, since cognizance is taken without sanction being accorded, the same would be illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, I

¶86

pass the following:

¶87

O R D E R

¶88

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶89

(ii) The proceedings in P.C.No.2 of 2017 now numbered as Special C.C.No.17 of 2017 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore stand quashed.

¶90

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Competent Authority to consider grant of sanction upon appropriate materials and pass orders thereof in accordance with law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶91

¶92

In view of disposal of the writ petition,

¶93

I.A.No.1/2018 also stands disposed.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

SJK

Mr Madhava Koodlu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Madhava Koodlu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M v Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Prakruti Century Properties Vs State of Karnataka

N Jayaramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Deepa N Mahibubani Vs the Commissioner

M/S. Trilokesh Smart Homes Vs M/S. Glenloch Properties LLP

Smt. Nina Susanna Varghese Vs State by White Field Police Station