Allowed

Sri C v. Jagadish v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2022CRL.P/1145/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proceedings registered in Crime No.21/2019 for cheating and forgery offences on a private complaint referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were challenged by the accused. The court held that such complaints must be supported by an affidavit and must disclose efforts to register a complaint with the police, and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings in Crime No.21/2019 pending on the file of JMFC-III Court, Shivamogga quashed qua the petitioners; Registry directed to circulate the order to all concerned Magistrates in the Sta

Sri C v Jagadish Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1627 OF 2022

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1145 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1462 OF 2022

¶10

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1627 OF 2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI SHESHANNA B., S/O BOMMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER PRE DIVISION R/AT NO.51, A BLOCK SWAMI VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT, GADIKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶13

SRI UMESH H., S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ACCOUNT ASSISTANT M I DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA R/AT KENCHARAYA KRUPA HUDCO COLONY LIOG-53 VINOBA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶14

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI GOVINDARAJU K., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA RURAL CIRCLE SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

SRI S.R.KANTHARAJ S/O LATE S.REVANAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CIVIL / ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR R/AT 1^ST CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, VEERANNA LAYOUT, VINOBA NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.21/2019 DATED 16.01.2019 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 405, 406, 408, 420, 463, 464, 471, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR.NO.2/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-III, SHIVAMOGGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1145 OF 2022

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI C.V.JAGADISH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANASWAMY REDDY

¶25

¶26

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RTD) R/AT NO.90, 41^ST CROSS 1^ST FLOOR, JAYANAGAR 8^TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶27

SRI RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RTD) R/AT NO.897, “SHIVA BASAVA” J.H.PATEL BADAVANE BEHIND SHAMANURU SHAMANURU POST DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

¶28

SRI T.PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE G.THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KSDB) SUB DIV., SHIVAMOGGA R/AT NO.59, SRI TULASI NILAYA 2^ND CROSS, KEERTHINAGAR SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶29

... PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI GOVINDARAJU K., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA RURAL CIRCLE SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶33

¶34

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶35

SRI S.R.KANTHARAJ S/O LATE S.REVANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS CIVIL/ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR R/AT 1^ST CROSS, 5^TH MAIN VEERANNA LAYOUT VINOBA NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶36

... RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.21/2019 DATED 16.01.2019 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.405, 406, 408, 420, 463, 464, 471, 120-B, 34 OF IPC ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.2/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC III SHIVAMOGGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶39

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1462 OF 2022

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SRI RAVEENDRAPPA S/O LATE MUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CHIEF ENGINEER (RTD.) PRESENTLY R/AT CENTRAL LIBRARY ROAD, B/H CANARA BANK SAHAKARANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶42

... PETITIONER (BY SRI GOVINDARAJU K.,(VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶43

¶44

AND:

¶45

STATE OF KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA RURAL CIRCLE SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶46

SRI S.R.KANTHARAJ S/O LATE S.REVANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CIVIL /ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR R/AT 1^ST CROSS, 5^TH MAIN VEERANNA LAYOUT, VINOBA NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶47

... RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶49

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.21/2019 DATED 16.01.2019 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 405, 406, 408, 420, 463, 464, 471, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR.NO.2/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-III, SHIVAMOGGA VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶50

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER SUBMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The petitioners in the batch of these petitions call in

¶54

question the proceedings in Crime No.21/2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 408, 420, 463, 464, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC. The crime is registered pursuant to registration of a private complaint by the complainant against the petitioners. The complainant is common in these petitions. Therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.

¶55

For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in Crl.P.No.1627/2022 are considered.

¶56

The 2^nd respondent a civil electrical contractor at Shivamogga is sanctioned and approved a contract on 24.08.2007 to lift water from Tungabhadra river under Lift Irrigation Scheme near Holaluru village, Shivamooga district to provide water to four lakes, Narayana lake, Singalli lake, Boodikere lake and Suttukere lake. After completion of the main work by RNR Engineers (P) Ltd., without following due process of

¶57

¶58

law, the tender is said to have been allotted to one K.B.Kumar to complete the remainder of the work under the same project. Without completing the balance work under the aforesaid tender, it is the allegation of the complainant that K.B.Kumar who was awarded work without calling for tender, raised bills for installation of new pump, motor rewinding, panel board capacitor, starter and transformer and created false documents contending that he had performed the work between 07.4.2017 to 16.5.2017. The total bill amount claimed was Rs.70 lakhs, which according to the complainant was a fabricated bill by taking support from false documents. The sum and substance of the complaint registered by the respondent No.2/complainant in all these cases is what is aforesaid.

¶59

On the aforesaid facts, the complainant registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against all the petitioners/accused in these cases. The learned Magistrate on 04.1.2019 endorses that cognizance is taken, office is directed to register the present complaint as PCR and put up

¶60

¶61

later, after which, the Magistrate refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police. The police register an FIR against these petitioners in Crime No.21/2019 pursuant to the reference made by the Magistrate as aforesaid. On registration of the said crime, the petitioners in these petitions have knocked the doors of this Court in these petitions.

¶62

Heard Sri.K.Govindaraju, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Harish Kumar.M.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶63

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.K.Govindaraj would contend that the complainant has made vague assertions in the complaint and the complaint is not supported by an affidavit as is required in law. The complainant also does not narrate in the complaint as to the efforts made by him to register a complaint before the police prior to registration of the private complaint before the learned Magistrate.

¶64

¶65

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the complainant would contend that it is not mandatory to file an affidavit, as the statement of verification, verifying the contents of the complaint is made in the complaint itself, though the complaint neither contains a verifying affidavit or an affidavit. He would submit that it is a matter of trial as the petitioners are all prima facie guilty of the afore-quoted offences, the matter is still in the stage of investigation, the police are yet to file their final report/charge sheet in the matter. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶66

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance of the aforesaid submissions and perusal of the material on record, the only issue that falls for my consideration is,

¶67

“Whether the complaint was maintainable without it being accompanied by an affidavit and a narration with regard to the efforts made by the complainant to register a

¶68

¶69

complaint prior to registration of a private complaint

¶70

before the Magistrate?”

¶71

To consider the said solitary issue, it is germane to notice Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. runs as follows:

¶72

“154. Information in cognizable cases.

¶73

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

¶74

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

¶75

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to that offence.”

¶76

(Emphasis supplied)

¶77

¶78

Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. deals with information in cognizable offences. Certain duties are enjoined to the informants in terms of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Prior to registration of a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. it is mandatory for the complainants who seek to register a private complaint to aver, in the least, that they have made efforts to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police and that having not borne any fruits, left with no choice, have knocked the doors of the learned Magistrate and while saying so, an affidavit accompanying the complaint must be necessarily made, more particularly, in a case where the complainant seeks investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. from the hands of the jurisdictional police. The purport of this is, the complainant who takes the route of filing a private complaint and seeks investigation under Sections 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., shall file an affidavit accompanying the said complaint and also submit about the failure of efforts taken to get a complaint registered before the police.

¶79

¶80

The Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA

¶81

V. STATE OF U.P.¹ has held as follows:

¶82

“29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.

¶83

30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.

¶84

¶85

1 (2015)6 SCC 287

¶86

¶87

application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

¶88

32. The present lis can be perceived from another angle. We are slightly surprised that the financial institution has been compelled to settle the dispute and we are also disposed to think that it has so happened because the complaint cases were filed. Such a situation should not happen.

¶89

33. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as follows:

¶90

“ 32.Protection of action taken in good faith .—No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of the rights of the secured creditor or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act.”

¶91

In the present case, we are obligated to say that the learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is because Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needless to emphasise, the legislative mandate has to be kept in mind.”

¶92

(Emphasis supplied)

¶93

¶94

The Apex Court clearly delineates the reason for directing affidavit to be accompanying the complaint and the narration about the efforts made by the complainant to register a complaint, as frivolous cases are simply registered without becoming accountable for the same.

¶95

The Apex Court in a later judgment, in the case of BABU VENKATESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA² has held as

¶96

follows:

¶97

“22. We find that in the present case, though civil suits have been filed with regard to the same transactions and though they are contested by the respondent No. 2 by filing written statement, he has chosen to file complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement with an ulterior motive of harassing the appellants. We find that, the present case fits in the category of No. 7, as mentioned in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra).

¶98

23. Further we find that, the present appeals deserve to be allowed on another ground.

¶99

24. After analyzing the law as to how the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised, this court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Prades h² has observed thus:

¶100

2 2022 SCC Online SC 200

¶101

¶102

“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.

¶103

31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.”

¶104

¶105

25. This court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

¶106

26. This court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations. The court has noted that, applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons.

¶107

27. This court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. This court emphasizes the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.

¶108

28. In the present case, we find that the learned Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., has totally failed to consider the law laid down by this court.

¶109

29. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant/respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra), and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint.

¶110

¶111

30. We are, therefore, of the considered view that, continuation of the present proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law.”

¶112

(Emphasis supplied)

¶113

On the bedrock of the principles enunciated in the aforequoted judgments of the Apex Court, if the complaint registered under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and the prayer is noticed, it becomes unmistakably clear that it would fall foul of the so enunciated principles in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.

¶114

The complaint registered by the 2^nd respondent seeks investigation from the hands of the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for the afore-quoted offences. The relevant narration in the complaint is extracted for the purpose of quick reference:

¶115

“ F ªÄÃ°£É J¯Áè PÁgÀ tUÀ ½AzÁV,À F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ 1 jAzÀ 7£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼É®ègÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀAvÉ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ¸ÀAZÀÄªÀiÁr zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¸ÀàµÀÖ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, F ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄ¼ÉîAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ºÁUÀÆ ªÀAZÀ£ÉªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, C®èzÉ D zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀjUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CzÀÄ ¤dªÁzÀzÉÝAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, D zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzsÁgÀªÁVlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀ£ÀÄß, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ £ÀA©PÉUÉ zÉÆæÃºÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ £ÀA©PÉUÉ zÉÆæÃºÀ ªÀiÁr zÀÄªÀåðªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, PÀvÀðªÀå ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV £ÀµÀ×ªÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, CPÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É

¶116

¶117

ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, C¢üPÁgÁwÃvÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ EvÁå¢.. PÀÄjvÁV ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ 405, 406, 408, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420, 120 © ºÁUÀÆ 34 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¤ßvÀgÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀ ¸ÉPÀë£ï CrAiÀÄ°è zÀAr¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ D PÁgÀt Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÉÆæ¹Ãdgï PÉÆÃqï£À ¸ÉPÀë£ï 156(3)gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀéjvÀªÁV ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉÃ½zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉ¤¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÆ, ºÁUÀÆ PÁWÀßd£ïë vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²PÉëUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÀPÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ¥Áæyð¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛgÉ.

¶118

¸À»/¸À»/¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀÄªÁ¢ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ

¶119

F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÃ½zÀ ¥ÁågÀ ¸ÀASÉå 1 jAzÀ 19gÀ°è£À J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀA©gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄnÖUÉ , £À£ÀUÉ w½¢gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄmÉÖUÉ ¸ÀvÀåªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶120

¸À»/¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ.”

¶121

The afore-quoted complaint is clearly an application seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. What is noticed from the complaint is that it is verified by a statement – a verification and does not accompany with an affidavit. Nonfiling of an affidavit along with the complaint is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant. Therefore, in the absence of an affidavit accompanying the aforequoted complaint/application, seeking investigation under

¶122

¶123

Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. could not have been maintained as it ran counter to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court (supra) .

¶124

There is a wide difference between a verification and an affidavit. Affidavit is a legally signed and notarized document, whereas, verification is only the statement of the complainant that whatever he has said is true. The accountability of the two are entirely different. Filing a false affidavit can make the complainant accountable and open to legal proceedings, the verification would not. Therefore, the learned Magistrates before whom a complaint is filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in which investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is sought shall not entertain such complaints, if they are not accompanied by an affidavit as mandated in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court afore-quoted in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA and BABU

¶125

VENKATESH (supra).

¶126

Notwithstanding the directions by the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA and its mandate, this

¶127

¶128

Court is flooded with cases of challenge to a direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned magistrate on private complaints being filed without accompanying affidavits. It is such cases, inter alia, that have lead to docket explosion in the trial Court and this Court, as any complaint sans accountability can sometimes be frivolous, frivolous I say, for the reason that complaints are registered to wreck vengeance; giving a civil dispute a colour of crime; intentions which suffer from want of bonafides; to settle personal scores, inter alia . It is therefore, the complainants should become accountable for registration of every crime. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA V. STATE OF U.P.³ , in the circumstances is apposite.

¶129

The Apex Court observes as follows:

¶130

“22. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the public interest litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this

¶131

3 (2021) 5 SCC 435

¶132

¶133

Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India [Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 712] : (SCC p. 642, para 191)

¶134

“191. … One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his.”

¶135

While the Court's ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself.

¶136

23. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction

¶137

¶138

of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land.”

¶139

Paraphrasing the observations of the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Magistrates to notice the following, prior to entertainment of complaints invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.:

¶140

(a) The learned Magistrates shall look into the complaint and its narration with regard to compliance of Section 154(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶141

(b) When complaints/applications are filed invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and a direction is sought at the hands of the learned Magistrates for investigation at the hands of the police, only such complaints shall accompany an affidavit and

¶142

¶143

not otherwise, as time has come to ‘nip frivolous registration of crime, in its bud’ .

¶144

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶145

ORDER

¶146

(i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed.

¶147

(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.21/2019 pending on the file of JMFC-III Court, Shivamogga stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶148

(iii) The Registry is directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the concerned learned Magistrates in the State for compliance with the directions.

¶149

Sd/JUDGE

¶150

bkp CT:MJ

Sri C v. Jagadish v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C v. Jagadish 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs S C Jayanna

Mr R S Shakthi Kumar Vs T Nirmalamma

Sharath Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shankar and Associates Vs R B S Religious Association Regd

N Sathish Vs Ambika J

Sri Keshava Murthy K K Vs State of Karnataka