Allowed

Mr Bheemesh Gowda v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CRL.P/314/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 314 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR, private complaint, and charge sheet. The court applied the principles of Priyanka Srivastava, finding procedural non-compliance and potential malicious delay by the complainant, while reserving liberty to initiate proceedings if requirements are met later.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed; the proceedings in Spl.C.No.37/2018 against respondents are quashed; liberty is reserved to the complainant to comply with Priyanka Srivastava requirements to initia

Mr Bheemesh Gowda Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 314 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR BHEEMESH GOWDA S/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEST LIFE FOUNDATION STATE BANK OF MYSORE BUILDING SATAGAHLLI 1ST STAGE MYSORE CITY-570001.

¶9

MR SWAMY GOWDA G B S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

RESIDING AT BEST LIFE FOUNDATION STATE BANK OF MYSORE BUILDING SATAGAHLLI 1ST STAGE MYSORE CITY-570001

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KAR.

¶16

MR MOHAN S/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS C/O SOMASHEKAR BEHIDN SADVIDYA SCHOOL HOUSING BOARD,

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶19

KUVEMPU NAGARA MANDYA TOWN MANDYA-571401

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.C.NO.37/2018 IN CR.NO.194/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A,B,C FILED BY THE RESPONDENT MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA.

¶23

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

A private complaint in PCR No.09/2017 came to be filed before the Civil Judge, JMFC, Mandya under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 10.05.2017 alleging that on 02.08.2015, when the complainant after getting down from the KSRTC bus stand, Mandya at about 5.00 p.m. was about to board a bus to go to Mysuru, at that time, accused Nos.4 to 8 being employees of Best Life Foundation, Mysuru, abducted the complainant forcefully in a van and took him to Best Life Foundation and confined him there from 02.08.2015 to 02.01.2016 for the sake of money.

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶28

It is alleged that the complainant was ill-treated during the course of his confinement. In that background, a private complaint came to be filed alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 357, 362, 367, 368 of IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶29

The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance referred the matter to Mandya West Police Station for enquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and charge sheet has been laid. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the same seeking for quashing the proceedings against him.

¶30

Sri.Sunil Kumar.H, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a private complaint which has been filed is not in compliance with the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTA AND

¶31

ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS -

¶32

(2015)6 SCC 287, more particularly in paragraphs 30 and

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶35

31 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-

¶36

"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 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.

¶37

We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶40

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 the 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 are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶43

He submits that there is no averment made in the private

¶44

complaint as regards complainant having approached the jurisdictional police for lodging a complainant, refusal by the said Station House Officer, the approach made by the complainant to the Superior Officer and no action being taken by such Superior Officer apart there from, he submits that there is no verifying affidavit verifying the contents of the said complainant as such, the Magistrate ought to have taken these factors into account and not referred the matter for investigation without such compliance. He submits that complainant has been hospitalized for treatment for deaddiction of his alcohol addiction and various Psychiatric disorder as regards which he has treated during the said period. In support thereof various medical certificates, prescriptions and clinical examination are also produced along with the petition. Therefore, he submits that even on merits, the complainant being a patient who has been treated at the hospital and discharged on 02.01.2016 has filed a complaint on 10.05.2017 which is after a period nearly 14 months from his discharge, which establishes malafides on the part of the complainant and

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶47

on this ground also he submits that the petition is required to

¶48

be allowed and the criminal proceedings needs to be quashed.

¶49

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings in respect of accused No.3 has been quashed in Crl.P.No.967 of 2020 and the petitioners herein are also entitled for the same benefit.

¶50

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶51

Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that in respect of accused No.3 in Spl.C.No.37/2018, who was charged with the same offences, the proceedings against him have been quashed and she further submits that the present case can be disposed of on similar terms.

¶52

Hence, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The criminal petition is allowed .

¶55

ii. The proceedings in Spl.C.No.37/2018, pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, against the

¶56

¶57

CRL.P No. 314 of 2019

¶58

petitioners in the instant case (accused Nos. 1 and 2) is also quashed.

¶59

iii. Liberty is however reserved to the complainant to comply with the requirements of the Priyanka Srivastava's case and initiate appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

¶60

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶61

SD/JUDGE

¶62

Mr Bheemesh Gowda v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Bheemesh Gowda v. State of Karnataka by

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

Anuradha Jagadish Vs Soumya Makkam

Dr Madhu Sudan T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh @ Chandregowda Vs Smt Gayathri @ Lakshmi

Sri. N Venugopala Murthy Vs State by East Zone Women Police Station

Sri Ramesh Babu O N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Madan M Vs State of Karnataka