Allowed

Sri Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022CRL.P/2066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered under Section 384 IPC against police constables. The court held that the complaint, filed 76 days after the alleged extortion and subsequently recorded as recovery only after the complainant saw the petitioners on television, was inherently improbable and an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No.9/2022 stand quashed.

Sri Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2066 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHIVAKUMAR

¶8

S/O CHANDRAPPA,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶10

RESIDING AT NO.205, E-BLOCK,

¶11

ADUGODI POLICE QUARTERS, BENGALURU – 560 030.

¶12

SRI SANTHOSH NOWKAR

¶13

S/O RAMU,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 9, A7 BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI MURTHY D.NAIK, SR.ADVOCATE FOR

¶17

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

SRI MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶21

BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION,

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶24

BENGALURU 560 032 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶25

2. SRI ILIYAZ

¶26

S/O ALLA BAKASH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 126, 9^TH CROSS L.R.NAGAR MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560 030.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AT ANNEXURE A BEARING CRIME NO.9/2022 DATED 19.01.2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.384 OF IPC 1860, BASED ON WRITTEN INFORMATION DATED 19.01.2022 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU (41^st ACMM).

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this

¶33

Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.9/2022, pending before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶36

Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC.

¶37

Heard Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶38

Sans details, facts in brief are as follows:

¶39

Respondent No.2 is the complainant and petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2, they are police constables. That on 25.10.2021 at around 11:00 p.m. near BDA complex, Kolar, when the petitioners were on a night patrol come across the complainant and see him consuming ganja, searched him and find a small packet of ganja in his possession. This is the genesis of the allegations in the complaint. It is further alleged that the petitioners finding ganja at the hands of the complainant, demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to let him go, failing which, they would take him to the police station and register a case against him. Later, Rs.1,00,000/- comes down to Rs.5,000/- to release him from the clutches then. This incident happens on 25.10.2021, the complainant did not

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶42

choose to register a case immediately but after about 76 days

¶43

of the incident, a complaint is registered on 19.01.2022, alleging that the petitioners herein demanded money to let him go on the night of 25.10.2021, as he was caught consuming ganja. A crime comes to be registered against the petitioners in crime No.9/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC. The registration of the crime against the petitioners is what drives them to this Court in this subject petition.

¶44

Learned senior counsel Sri Murthy D. Naik, appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that the petitioners are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons into the web of this crime without their being any substance in the allegation. If the incident had happened on 25.10.2021, nothing stopped the complainant to register a complaint immediately and not wait for 76 days after the incident to register the said crime. The so called recovery of Rs.2,500/each from the petitioners on 19.01.2022, after lapse of 76 days of the incident itself would show that the entire episode suffers

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶47

from want of probability even and would submit that the proceedings should not be permitted to continue.

¶48

On the other hand, learned High Court Government

¶49

Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, to contend that the petitioners being police constables are habitual in these kind of activities, demanding money, has been their habit, when they come across people consuming narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance and some recovery are made from them. The police have completed investigation, the charge sheet is kept ready to be filed before the concerned Court and it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and have perused the available material on record.

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶53

The incident is alleged to have happened on

¶54

25.10.2021. The complaint comes to be registered by respondent No.2 – complainant on 19.01.2022. The complaint so made by respondent No.2, reads as follows:

¶55

“F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ £Á£ÀÄ DmÉÆÃ qÉæöÊªÀgï DV PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ fÃªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.10.2021 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 11.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ªÉÃ¼ÉAiÀÄ°è, ©.r.J PÁA¥ÉèPïì §½AiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÊAiÀÄzï C°ÃA JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ UÁAeÁ ¸ÉÃzÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÉÃ¼ÉAiÀÄ°è, PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ® ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ C°èUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ £ÉÆÃrzÀ ¸ÉÊAiÀÄåzï C°A JA§ÄªÀ£ÀÄ NrºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ, DUÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï £À£Àß£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ZÉPï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ £À£Àß §½AiÀÄ°è JgÀqÀÄªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¹UÀgÉÃnUÉ vÀÄA§ÄªÀµÀÄÖ aPÀÌ UÁAeÁ ¥ÁåPÉÃmï EzÀÄÝzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr, ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉÃ¸ÀÄ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÁV ºÉzÀj¹zÀgÀÄ, C®èzÉ 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀgÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß E°èAiÉÄÃ ©qÀÄªÀÅzÁV ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß §½ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ ºÀt«®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß §½ EzÀÝ 5000/- gÀÆ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ 5000/gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß J°èAiÀiÁzÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£É ©qÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ÀgÁzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÃ¸ÀÄ ºÁQ eÉÊ°UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¤£Éß ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18.01.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¢£À PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÀÆå¸ï ZÁ£À¯ïUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ UÁAeÁ PÉÃ¹£À°è Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr eÉÊ°UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀ w½zÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À zsÉÊAiÀÄðªÀiÁr oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É.

¶56

£À£Àß£ÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹ £À¤ßAzÀ 5000/- gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉÃ¼ÀzÀAvÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï JA§ÄªÀgÀ «zÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É.”

¶57

The complainant narrates that on 25.10.2021, at 11 p.m.,

¶58

the petitioners were on night patrol and came across the complainant smoking cigarette and found a small quantity of

¶59

¶60

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶61

ganja with him. He claims to be threatened and extorted money of Rs.5,000/-. On 19.01.2022, it transpires that when the complainant was watching a news channel on the television, he saw the photographs of the petitioners and then he recollects that he had paid Rs.5,000/- to these two petitioners and then complaint is registered. It is this complaint becomes a crime in crime No.9/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC. Though the complaint or the FIR need not be a encyclopedia of the offences, the offence in the case at hand is the one, that is punishable under Section 384 of the IPC. Section 384 of the IPC deals with extortion. If the complainant was a victim of extortion by police, he ought to have registered the crime immediately thereon.

¶62

The narration in the complaint is that, the petitioners have demanded Rs.1/- lakh on 25.10.2021 and ultimately, settled the issue for Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- had been paid on 25.10.2021, which springs back from the memory of the complainant on him saying that the pictures of the petitioners

¶63

¶64

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶65

were shown on the news channel of the television after 76 days

¶66

and further, he remembers that he has paid Rs.5,000/- and registers a complaint. The recovery of Rs.2,500/- each is made from the petitioners on the registration of the complaint and what is sought to be projected is that those Rs.2,500/- each recovered from the petitioners is the same that was extorted from the hands of the complainant 76 days ago. Therefore, the very registration of the crime in the facts of this case is clearly shrouded with inherent improbabilities. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, has held as follows:

¶67

“15. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) as under:

¶68

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the

¶69

¶70

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶71

following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶72

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶73

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶74

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶75

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶76

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that

¶77

10 -

¶78

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶79

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶80

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶81

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶82

16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtr a² .

¶83

(Emphasis supplied)

¶84

In terms of the postulate - 5 as is laid down by the Apex Court, a case could be quashed at the stage of registration of a crime itself, if the narration in the complaint would on the face of it would be inherently improbable. The facts narrated hereinabove cannot but lead to unmistakable conclusion that the entire episode of crime or the story of the crime that is twined by the complainant is inherently improbable as the complainant did not chose to register a complaint immediately

¶85

11 -

¶86

CRL.P No. 2066 of 2022

¶87

and after 76 days randomly while watching television sees the

¶88

pictures of the petitioners and registers a crime. The police recover Rs.2,500/- each from both the petitioners and treat those Rs.2,500/- to be the money that is extorted 76 days ago.

¶89

If in the teeth of such facts, further proceeding if permitted to continue against the petitioners, it would be an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶90

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶91

ORDER

¶92

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶93

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.9/2022, pending before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Court, Bengaluru, stand quashed.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivakumar 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

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. N. Puttaswamy

Muthu Raj. G Vs State by Yashwanthpura Police

Yashodha P R Vs State by Women Police

Sumana Paruchuri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kamalakara Narasimha Bhandari Vs Sri S v Manjunath

M/S Canara Bank Vs M/S Arihant Pharma