Allowed

Sri Mircle Varadaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2022CRL.P/4254/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition seeks to quash a second FIR registered for an alleged trespass and assault incident. The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, citing violation of Article 21 due to the registration of a duplicate complaint for the same transaction and the unexplained delay in lodging it.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The Impugned FIR registered in Crime No.395/2018 is hereby quashed.

Sri Mircle Varadaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4254 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MIRCLE VARADARAJU, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DARSHAN MIRLE, RESIDING AT NO.544, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU-560060. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRINIVAS RAO S S, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION (OCW SQUAD, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH) BENGALURU-560091 REP. BY ITS: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

SRI CHANNAIAH M, S/O LATE MAYIGAIAY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.45, II MAIN, III CROSS

¶12

-:2:-

¶13

AVALAHALLY MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560026. ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R.D, HCGP FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.395/2018 DATED 06.12.2018 REGISTERED BY THE ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT COPY ORDER DATED 06.12.2018 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,120B,447,427,506,468,471,307,384,149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V A.C.M.M., BANGALORE NOW TRANSFER TO THE LEARNED I A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The second respondent lodged the first information report on 6.12.2018 alleging that in the year 1997 he purchased a site bearing No.572/I in the Vinayaka Layout formed by Vinayaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha at Nagarbhavi Extension by paying a sum of Rs.40,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with his henchmen came to the site and with an intention for extorting money, trespassed into the house which was under construction and

¶20

-:3:-

¶21

attempted to demolish a wall. It is further alleged that

¶22

when the second respondent questioned the said acts, the petitioner pushed him hard and when he fell down, the petitioner attempted to kill the second respondent by smothering.

¶23

The Police registered the FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 447, 427, 506, 468, 471, 307, 384 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.365/2018, this petition is filed.

¶24

Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Srinivas Rao S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the FIR lodged by the second respondent is not sustainable in law having regard to the fact that the son of the informant has already lodged the FIR in Crime No.248/2018 for the very same incident. Hence, he submits that the registration of the FIR for the same incident

¶25

-:4:-

¶26

is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the FIR lodged by the second respondent, after the lapse of more than four months from the date of the alleged incident, is not sustainable in the absence of any explanation offered for the delay in lodging the FIR.

¶27

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the allegation made in the FIR discloses the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner. Hence, registration of the FIR against the petitioner is legal and does not warrant any interference.

¶28

I have considered the submission made by the

¶29

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

Perusal of the FIR lodged by the son of the second respondent in Crime No.395/2018 discloses that the FIR was been lodged for the very same incident on the very same date and time against the petitioner herein alleging that petitioner herein has committed the offence by

¶31

-:5:-

¶32

criminally trespassing into the house of the respondent No.2 the informant therein.

¶33

The Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony -VsState of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross case) is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which is held as under:

¶34

“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the Police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of

¶35

-:6:-

¶36

successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC.”

¶37

The Apex Court in the case of Krishna Lal

¶38

Chawla and Others –vs- State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 191, has held that the complainant cannot subject the petitioner to a double whammy of investigation and enquiry conducted by the jurisdictional police against the same accused arising out of the very same incident. The Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v CBI & Anr . reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 has held that the second FIR in respect of an offence committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

The alleged incident took place on 2.12.2018. However, the FIR was lodged after the lapse of four months from the date of the alleged incident without offering any explanation for the delay. In view of the ratio enunciated by

¶40

-:7:-

¶41

the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the lodging of FIR by the respondent No.2 against the Petitioner for offences alleged to have been committed arising out of the very same incident is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, it implies that the FIR lodged was an after thought so as to falsely implicate the petitioner which is not sustainable in law.

¶42

10. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶43

The Criminal petition is allowed. Impugned FIR dated 6.12.2018 registered in Crime No.395/2018 by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar, Police Station, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 447, 427, 506, 468, 471, 307, 384 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri Mircle Varadaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mircle Varadaraju 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

Smt. Shruthi Y Vs the Commissioner

G Aswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

L Govindraj Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Swamy R T Vs State by Santhebennur P.S.

Nandeesh Chikkanna Vs M/S. Magma Fincorp Limited

Sri Dinesh Shetty Vs the Station House Officer