Allowed

Mr. S. K. Basavarajan v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023CRL.P/12350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings in a criminal case, holding that the complaint about false allegations in another case fell within the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and constituted an impermissible parallel proceeding aimed at derailing the original trial. The writ petition seeking transfer of investigation was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.484/2022 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.123/2023 were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

Mr. S. K. Basavarajan Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

¶4

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12350 OF 2022 C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITON NO.1280 OF 2023(GM-POLICE)

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12350/2022:

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

1 . MR. S. K. BASAVARAJAN S/O. KARISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. THOTADAMANE, MARRULAPPA BADAVANE, MEDIHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶12

2 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA BASAVARAJAN W/O. S. K. BASAVARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. THOTADAMANE, MARRULAPPA BADAVANE, MEDIHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.KARIAPPA N A, ADVOCATE)

¶15

-2-

¶16

AND

¶17

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560 001)

¶18

2 . SRI. BASAVAPRABHU SWAMIJI SRI MURUGHARAJENDRA BRUHANMATTA, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶19

…..RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.484/2022 OF CHITRADURGA RURAL P.S., CHITRADURGA AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE U/S 120B,384,420,366A OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, CHITRDURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶22

IN W.P. NO.1280/2023

¶23

BETWEEN

¶24

SRI. BASAVAPRABHU SWAMIJI S/O SHIVAYOGI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS IN CHARGE PONTIFF SRI MURUGHARAJENDRA BRUHANMATA

¶25

-3-

¶26

CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA 577502

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND

¶30

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 01

¶31

2 . CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 01

¶32

MR. S. K. BASAVARAJAN S/O. KARISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. THOTADAMANE, MARRULAPPA BADAVANE, MEDIHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶33

SMT. SOWBHAGYA BASAVARAJAN W/O. S. K. BASAVARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. THOTADAMANE, MARRULAPPA BADAVANE, MEDIHALLI, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶34

-4-

¶35

…..RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2 SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. KARIAPPA N.A, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ENTRUST THE INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.484/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 384, 420 AND 366A OF IPC PENDING INVESTIGATION ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 TO ANY SENIOR LADY POLICE OFFICER.

¶38

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.10.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

COMMON ORDER

¶40

“Every trial that fails due to external interference is a tragedy for the victim(s) of the crime. More importantly, every frustrated trial defies and mocks the society based on the rule of law. Every subverted trial leaves a scar on the criminal justice system. Repeated scars make the system unrecognisable and it then loses the trust and confidence of the people” - R.K.Anand Vs. Delhi High Court.

¶41

-5-

¶42

The writ petition has been filed by the complainant-informant seeking direction at the hands of this Court to entrust the investigation in Crime No.484/2022 to any senior lady Police Officer. The Criminal Petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.484/2022, later assigned C.C.No.123/2023, pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, for quashing the entire legal proceedings, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since both the cases arise out of the same criminal case/proceedings, the matters were clubbed, heard and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the accused persons No.1 and 2, who are the petitioners in Criminal Petition shall be referred to as ‘petitioners’.

¶43

A brief narration of facts are necessary to understand the background in which the crime was

¶44

-6-

¶45

registered on the basis of information provided by the writ petitioner Sri Basavaprabhu Swamiji, who calls himself the in-charge Pontiff of Sri Murugharajendra Bruhanmata, Chitradurga. On 24.07.2022, two young girls, inmates of the Hostel run by the Mutt arrived at Bengaluru City Bus Stand. That night, an autorickshaw driver took them to Cottonpet Police Station and on verification, since the police came to know that the two young girls were inmates of the Hostel at Chitradurga, and that the petitioners herein were known to be associated with the Institution, the Cottonpet police informed them about the two girls who were found in Bengaluru. The petitioners immediately left Chitradurga and arrived in Bengaluru City and went to Cottonpet Police Station at about 1.00 p.m. With the consent of the police, the two young girls went along with the petitioners, back to Chitradurga. Nearly after a month, i.e., on 26.08.2022

¶46

-7-

¶47

the two young girls were taken to ‘Odanadi Seva Samsthe’, an NGO at Mysuru. The office bearers of the NGO took the two girls to Nazarbad Police Station at Mysuru and got a complaint registered to the effect that the Pontiff of Sri Murugharajendra Bruhanmata, Dr.Shivamurthy Muruga Sarana had sexually abused the two young girls. Since the alleged offence is said to have taken place at Chitradurga, the Nazarbad Police, Mysuru, transferred the case to Chitradurga Rural Police Station. On 28.08.2022, the statements of the two young girls were recorded by Chitradurga Police and thereafter, the FIR was registered and action was taken against the Pontiff of the Mutt.

¶48

On 13.10.2022 one Smt.Gayatri, who was

¶49

working as a Cook in the Hostel of the Mutt took her two daughters to ‘Odanadi Seva Samsthe’ at Mysuru. Once again similar accusations were made against the Pontiff of the Mutt and once again a case was

¶50

-8-

¶51

registered in Crime No.182/2022 at Nazarbad Police Station at Mysuru. The case was once again transferred to Chitradurga Rural Police and on 14.10.2022, the Chitradurga Rural Police registered Crime No.445/2022 against the Pontiff of the Mutt. The said case is now registered as Spl.C.No.27/2023 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Chitradurga.

¶52

The present cases do not arise out of the two criminal cases registered against the Pontiff of the Mutt. On the other hand, a written complaint was given by Sri Basavaprabhu Swamiji, who claims to be the in-charge Pontiff, on 09.11.2022 at about 6.00 p.m. stating that some persons have conspired to tarnish the image of the Mutt and the Pontiff by coaxing the two young girls to make unfounded statements against the Pontiff, on the basis of which a criminal case was earlier registered during the month

¶53

-9-

¶54

of July 2022 and thereafter, a teacher of the school namely Basavarajendra once again conspired with the Cook Smt.Gayatri, who in turn convinced her two daughters to make statements against the Pontiff, consequent to which one more criminal case was registered against the Pontiff of the Mutt. However, the complainant came across a voice recording which was being circulated in the social media and one of the voices being that of the elder daughter of Smt.Gayatri, speaking to one of the teachers of the Institution, clearly established the conspiracy hatched against the Pontiff and an admission on the part of the girl, that they were forced to give such statements. On the basis of the said information, an FIR was registered in Crime No.484/2022 by the Chitradurga Rural Police on 26.08.2022 at about 6.00 p.m. and the FIR was forwarded to the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga at about 9.00 p.m. It appears that

¶55

-10-

¶56

about 7.30 p.m., the teacher whose voice appears in the recording was arrested and on the basis of the statement made by the said teacher, petitioner No.1 herein viz., Sri S.K.Basavarajan was arrested by the police at about 12.30 on the same night. Sri S.K.Basavarajan, was produced before the Police Inspector and he was interrogated till 2.30 a.m. and thereafter produced along with a remand application before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga and he was remanded to police custody till 14.11.2022. It is alleged that on the basis of the information given by Sri S.K.Basavarajan, the police seized two mobile phones from his house. Sri S.K.Basavarajan (petitioner No.1) was thereafter remanded to judicial custody on 14.11.2022. Sri Basavarajan’s wife Smt.Sowbhagya (petitioner No.2) was arrested on 16.12.2022. Both the petitioners were granted bail subsequently.

¶57

-11-

¶58

Arguments advanced by Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶59

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is clear from the brief narration of the facts, that all efforts are being made at the instance of the Pontiff of the Mutt, to derail the criminal judicial proceedings initiated in accordance with law, only to ensure that the original complainants and witnesses are terrified and forced to retract and turn hostile to their own case. Learned Senior Counsel, while taking this Court through the written complaint, submitted that it is a one page information submitted along with a pen-drive said to contain the voice recording of the elder daughter of Smt.Gayatri and Sri Basavarajendra, the teacher. The information simply says that on the basis of the voice recording, it is clear that there is a conspiracy hatched by certain

¶60

-12-

¶61

persons inimically disposed towards the Mutt and the Pontiff, to tarnish the image of the Mutt and the Pontiff and on the basis of which a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.445/2022 against Dr.Shivamurthy Muruga Sarana. It is stated that Sri Basavarajendra, the teacher has assured the young girl who has not attained the age of marriage, that he would marry her if no one else comes forward to marry her. Learned Senior Counsel submits that on the basis of the said information, FIR was registered under the provisions of Sections 120B, 384, 420, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Senior Counsel would add at this stage that a chargesheet has been filed while giving up the charges under Section 420 of IPC, but adding Section 201 of IPC on the ground that the petitioners herein destroyed one of the mobile phones used by Smt.Sowbhagya and thereby, causing disappearance of evidence of

¶62

-13-

¶63

offence. It is submitted that the written complaint does not indicate the names of the petitioners herein and therefore, there is no basis for invocation of Section 384 of IPC, punishment for extortion, against the petitioners. Similarly, it is submitted that there is absolutely no information in the complaint which could implicate the petitioners for an offence under Section 366A, to induce a minor girl to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.

¶64

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that merely because petitioner No.2 herein had stated that she had misplaced or lost one of her mobile phones, Section 201 of IPC has been invoked. The allegation that the destruction of the mobile phone would amount to causing disappearance of evidence of offence, in the present context cannot be accepted as legal submission, since the written complaint only

¶65

-14-

¶66

speaks of the recorded conversation between Sri Basavarajendra and the elder daughter of Smt.Gayatri. It is not stated as to how the mobile phone of Smt.Sowbhagya or the conversation on the mobile phone of Smt.Sowbhagya could be treated as evidence, for the basis of invocation of the said provision.

¶67

Most importantly, the learned Senior Counsel

¶68

would submit that a plain reading of the written complaint makes it clear that the informant is voicing concerns on behalf of an accused person viz., Dr.Shivamurthy Muruga Sarana, the Pontiff of the Mutt, against whom a criminal case has been registered by Chitradurga Rural Police in Crime No.445/2022. The plain reading of the complaint would show that the informant is alleging that a criminal case has been falsely registered against the Pontiff of the Mutt, on the basis of false information

¶69

-15-

¶70

given by Smt.Gayatri. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that at best, the information may attract the provisions contained in Section 177 of IPC and/or Section 182 of IPC. However, for the invocation of these two provisions, there is a bar created in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of IPC, unless the complaint in writing is given by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It is submitted that if cognizance has to be taken on the basis of such information which makes out a case falling under Sections 172 to 188, such cognizance can be taken by the Court, only if such complaint is given in writing by the concerned public servant. In the present case, the public servant would be the Investigating Officer

¶71

-16-

¶72

in Crime No.445/2022 or a higher Officer to whom the Investigating Officer is administratively subordinate to.

¶73

In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 1962 SC 1206 , wherein it was held that having regard to the express provisions contained in Section 195 of Cr.PC., there is an absolute bar against the court in taking cognizance of the case except in the manner provided by the section.

¶74

It is submitted that it is also well established position of law that even in matters of a case and counter case, the police are not permitted to register two separate crimes. During the course of the investigation, if any information is received by the Investigating Officer, counter to the information given by the first informant, then such information should

¶75

-17-

¶76

form part of the information received or recorded by the Investigating Officer, but a separate case cannot be registered. In this regard, the attention of this Court is drawn to Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2013) 6 SCC 384, wherein it is held that the police officer is duty bound to register FIR, but not second FIR in respect of same offence/incident forming part of same transaction as contained in first FIR. It was held that inbuilt safeguard provided under CrPC, are principles akin to double jeopardy, fair investigation and prevention of abuse of power by investigating agency. It is submitted that in the same decision, it has been held that the scheme of the criminal procedure does not provide for any right of hearing at the time of registration of First Information Report. The very purpose of fair and just investigation would stand frustrated if pre-registration hearing is required to be

¶77

-18-

¶78

granted to a suspect. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that if the subsequent information given by the in-charge Pontiff, would in any way belie the truth in the first information given by Smt.Gayatri, then it can only be placed before the court as a counter evidence but it will not enable the Investigating Officer to register a separate case and allow him to test the veracity of the information given by Smt.Gayatri or hold a separate investigation.

¶79

Having regard to the said position of law, it is submitted that there is no scope under the criminal justice system of our country to enable the Investigating Officer to register a separate case and go into the truth and verify the correctness of the statement made by Smt.Gayatri. That exercise can only be done by the court which is seized of the matter. Having this in mind, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that if the court trying the case

¶80

-19-

¶81

comes to a conclusion that Smt. Gayatri has given false information, on the basis of which a criminal trial was forced upon the Pontiff of the Mutt, then in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.PC., on a complaint in writing of that court, an FIR can be registered or the same court may take action for offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 of IPC. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the very same information which may constitute false information under Sections 172 to 188 would become offences under Sections 193 to 196, etc., when such information is given on oath before the court of law.

¶82

In the same line, the decision in T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others (2001) 6 SCC 181 is relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel. It is held that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173

¶83

-20-

¶84

Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. There can be no second FIR and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the Station House Diary, the officer in-charge of the Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is therefore submitted that there is no scope for

¶85

-21-

¶86

registering a separate FIR, having regard to the contents of the information, mentioning the registration of Crime No.445/2022 and seeking action against the informant/complainant Smt.Gayatri.

¶87

Moreover, the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, it was impermissible for the Investigating Officer to cause a separate investigation into the allegations made in the complaint filed by Shri Basavaprabhu Swamiji and implicate the petitioners herein in the FIR and the final report.

¶88

Another aspect of the matter which was vehemently contended is that for obvious reasons the relevant provisions of IPC are not quoted in the FIR and the final report, only to avoid the rigors of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. On a plain reading of the written complaint, at best allegations of giving false information (Section 177 IPC) and/or giving false

¶89

-22-

¶90

information with intent to cause the police to use lawful power to cause injury to another person (Section 182 IPC) would be attracted. However, since there is a bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for receiving and registering an FIR at the behest of a private individual, in matters arising out of Sections 177 and 182 of IPC, the Investigating Officer has deliberately avoided mentioning the two provisions, while invoking Sections 120B, 384, 366(A) and later adding Section 201 of IPC, to ensure that there is a cognizable offence which would enable the Police Officer to register an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, the decision in the case of Basir-UlHuq and Others Vs. State of West Bengal , AIR 1953 SC 293 was cited, wherein it was held that it has to be borne in mind that the provisions of the relevant section cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflages. The test whether there is

¶91

-23-

¶92

evasion of the section or not is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the Court or of the public servant is required. In other words, the provisions of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that Section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, upon the ground that such latter offence is a minor offence of the same character, or by describing the offence as being one punishable under some other section of the Indian Penal Code, though in truth and substance the offence falls in the category of sections mentioned in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it.

¶93

-24-

¶94

To sum up, it is submitted that the registration of the FIR in Crime No.484/2022 is void ab initio and all further proceedings, including the submission of the final report is illegal, contrary to the provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. and therefore, the FIR and the entire legal proceedings are required to be quashed.

¶95

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE INFORMANT/COMPLAINANT

¶96

Before submitting the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel sought to submit the facts and chronology of events leading to the filing of the written complaint at the hands of Sri Basavaprabhu Swamiji. It was submitted that the undisputed events that occurred prior to the registration of the FIRs in Crime No.387/2022 and Crime No.445/2022

¶97

-25-

¶98

(allegations of sexual assault on the Pontiff of the Mutt), would disclose that there was a conspiracy hatched by the petitioners herein along with Sri Basavarajendra (teacher) and Smt.Gayatri, to falsely implicate the Pontiff of the Mutt in serious crime such as sexual assault on the young girls/inmates of the Hostel run by the Mutt. The intention behind the conspiracy was to ensure that the first petitioner herein (Sri S.K.Basavarajan) is given a free hand in the control of the administration of the Mutt or to extort money from the Pontiff of the Mutt, while threatening him of such wild allegations. The learned Senior Counsel read out the transcription of the recorded conversation between Sri Basavarajendra and the elder daughter of Smt.Gayatri and submitted that it is clear from the conversation that a conspiracy was indeed hatched to implicate the Pontiff of the Mutt. The young girl admitted in the conversation

¶99

-26-

¶100

that she gave a statement to the police only at the instance of her mother and she was not interested in pursuing the matter as it would ruin her life and career and no one will come forward to marry her. The statements given by the inmates of the hostel/institution were read out to fortify the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that there was no truth in the allegation made against the Pontiff of the Mutt. It was submitted that the petitioners are guilty of destroying relevant evidence in the form of the mobile phone of Smt.Sowbhagya, which would show that there was prior conversation between the petitioners, Sri Basavarajendra (teacher), Smt.Gayatri and her elder daughter, conspiring to implicate the Pontiff of the Mutt. The learned Senior Counsel also sought to draw the attention of this Court to the medical examination reports of the four girl students and many other such inmates of the hostel who had

¶101

-27-

¶102

joined the investigation, to contend that the reports would unequivocally state that the girl students were not sexually abused and everything was intact. It was submitted that statements of about 26 girl students were recorded during the course of investigation and none of them reiterated the allegations contained in the complaint made against the Pontiff. On the other hand, information was made available to the Investigating Officer that the petitioners herein had instituted various litigations against the Mutt and the Pontiff.

¶103

It was submitted that Sections 120B and 201

¶104

of the IPC are registered against the petitioners having found during the course of the investigation that the petitioners had hatched a conspiracy to implicate the Pontiff and that they are also guilty of destroying evidence of offence. It is further submitted that Section 120B can be a stand alone offence, for

¶105

-28-

¶106

which an accused can be punished. In that regard, the decision in Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi

¶107

vs. State of Maharastra (2008) 10 SCC 394 was relied. It was held that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement. Therefore, the registration of the FIR under section 120B of IPC cannot be faulted. Similarly, since the petitioners are guilty of destroying the mobile phone, which would be relevant evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioners who had spoken to each other, conspiring to implicate the Pontiff, the act of destruction of the mobile phone would attract Section 201 of IPC. In this regard, the decision in Saranya vs. Bharathi and another (2021) 8 SCC 583 was pressed into service. It was held that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer

¶108

-29-

¶109

had collected very important evidence in the form of call details between A-1 and A-2 which were in the proximity of the time of commission of offence and even thereafter. It was therefore held that the High Court committed grave error in quashing the charge sheet/entire criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the final report has been filed by the respondent police having found during the course of investigation that the petitioners herein had conspired to implicate the Pontiff of the Mutt in serious criminal charges, only to serve their greed for money and power. It is submitted that both Sections 120B and 201 of IPC are cognizable offences and therefore the respondent police are competent to register the FIR and proceed to investigate into the matter.

¶110

It was submitted that this Court, exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a

¶111

-30-

¶112

mini trial and cannot get into appreciation of evidence. In that regard, the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Akhil Sharda and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 was pressed into service.

¶113

It was pointed out that in Kaptan Singh/vs./ State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 9 SCC 35 , it has been held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court should bear in mind the powers exercisable at two different stages, one after the FIR is registered and before the final report is filed and the second being after the final report is filed. It was held that if the petition under Section 482 was filed at the stage of FIR, in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when

¶114

-31-

¶115

the statements are recorded and evidence are collected and chargesheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry, the matter stands on different footing and court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also the High Court is not required to go into merit of the allegation and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the high court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial in order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not. The High Court cannot act like an investigation agency nor can it exercise the powers like an appellate court.

¶116

It was submitted that since the provisions of

¶117

Section 177 and/or 182 of IPC were not invoked by the respondent police, the question of applying Section 195 of Cr.P.C. to the present case would not arise. Further, it was submitted that the bar is on the

¶118

-32-

¶119

Court not to take cognizance, in terms of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and not a bar on the police.

¶120

Since it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that their names were not disclosed in the written complaint and even otherwise, the provisions of Sections 384 and 366-A had nothing to do with the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that sub-section (4) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provides that where a case relates to two or more offences of which atleast one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. Attention of this court was also drawn to the explanation provided to the definition of “complaint” as found in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the explanation makes it clear that a report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be

¶121

-33-

¶122

deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. Attention of this Court was also drawn to a very recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH Vs. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and Another in Crl.A.No.1959/2012 decided on 05.10.2023. It was submitted that the Apex Court has held that nothing in the applicable law prevents a Magistrate from applying his judicial mind to other provisions of law as to ascertain whether, prima facie, ‘an offence’, as defined in Section 2(n) of the Cr.P.C. is made out. Without such opinion being formed, question of ‘proceeding’ as in Section 204 does not arise. What the law imposes on the Magistrate as a requirement is that he is bound to consider on such of the materials that are brought before him in terms of Sections 200 and 202 as well as any applicable provision of a

¶123

-34-

¶124

statute, and what is imposed as a restriction by law on him is that he is precluded from considering any material not brought on the record in a manner permitted by the legal process.

¶125

While summing up, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the action initiated by the respondent-Police on the basis of the written complaint given by Sri Basavaprabhu Swamiji, is in accordance with the established procedures and therefore, the proceedings should be permitted to continue, in the interest of justice.

¶126

A BRIEF ANALYSIS

¶127

23. In Bandekar Brothers Private Limited Vs.

¶128

Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others (2020) 20 SCC

¶129

1 , His Lordship Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman has described a similar situation, lucidly that “the Court has thus to steer between two opposite poles of a

¶130

-35-

¶131

spectrum-the “yin” being the protection of a person from frivolous criminal complaints, and the “yang” being the right of a victim to ventilate his grievance and have the Court try the offence”. That was also a case arising out of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., but the distinction is that in that case and a plethora of reported decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, what fell for consideration is clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and very few which would fall under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. In all the decisions cited at the Bar and what this Court found in many such cases such as :

¶132

1. Basir-Ul-Huq and Others Vs. State of West Bengal , AIR 1953 SC 293

¶133

2 ) Bhima Razu Prasad Vs. State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2021 SC 2090

¶134

-36-

¶135

1. Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and Another, AIR 1973 SC 2190

¶136

1. M.L.Sethi Vs. R.P.Kapoor and Another, AIR 1967 SC 528

¶137

1. R.K.Anand Vs.Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106

¶138

6) Ram Dhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2012) 5 SCC 536

¶139

is that the cases arose on the basis of allegation of giving false evidence before the court of law or fabricating false evidence or making use of forged document as genuine etc. Very few such as Abdul

¶140

Rehman and Others Vs. K.M.Anees-Ul-Huq

¶141

(2011) 10 SCC 696 deal with a case falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. However, in Abdul Rehman , though the case arose out of a Magistrate entertaining a complaint under Section 211 IPC that the accusations made by the

¶142

-37-

¶143

appellant therein in the report lodged with CAWC were totally false and fabricated, nevertheless the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since subsequently bail proceedings were conducted by the Court of the Sessions Judge in connection with the case which the appellants had lodged with CAWC were judicial proceedings and the offence punishable under Section 211 IPC alleged to have been committed by the appellants related to the said proceedings, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted. The case is held to be one falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i), since bail proceedings conducted by the Court of the Sessions Judge in connection with the case were judicial proceedings.

¶144

It should be noticed that the Two Judges Bench in Abdul Rehman (supra) has followed a Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC

¶145

-38-

¶146

91 . The fact situation there was that having secured an order of discharge, Sri.Satya Narayan Pathak filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate accusing Kamlapati Trivedi of the commission of offences under Sections 211 and 182 of the IPC by reason of Trivedi having lodged with the police a false complaint against Mr.Pathak. Trivedi appeared in the court of SDJM in response to a summons only in respect of offence under Section 211 of IPC and was allowed a fortnight to furnish security while the case itself was adjourned. Trivedi presented a petition to the High Court of Calcutta praying that proceedings pending against him before the SDJM be quashed in as much as the latter was debarred from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 211 of the IPC in the absence of a complaint in writing of the SDJM himself in view of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Code. It was

¶147

-39-

¶148

argued before the High Court that the part of the proceedings which started with the registration of the case by the police, at the instance of the Trivedi and culminated in the order of discharge of Mr.Pathak and five co-accused, constituted proceedings before a court, that the offence under Section 211 of IPC attributed to Trivedi was committed in or, in any case, in relation to such part and therefore the case against Trivedi fell within the ambit of clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195. The High Court did not accept the contention while stating that the proceedings before the court becomes a criminal proceeding only when a court takes cognizance and not before. Before the Apex Court it was argued that the SDJM had passed an order releasing Mr.Pathak on bail and then another order of discharge was passed by the SDJM acting judicially and therefore as a Court; that it cannot but be held that those orders were

¶149

-40-

¶150

passed in proceedings in relation to which the offence under Section 211 of IPC was alleged to have been committed and consequently, the SDJM had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of that offence.

¶151

The Apex Court took up the following two points for determination:

¶152

(a) Whether the SDJM has acted as a Court when he passed the orders on the bail application and the application for discharge or any of them?

¶153

(b) If the answer to question (a) is in the affirmative, whether the offence under Section 211 of IPC attributed to Trivedi could be regarded having been committed in relation to proceeding culminating in either or both of the said orders?

¶154

For easy reference, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is

¶155

extracted:

¶156

“ 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for

¶157

-41-

¶158

offences relating to documents given in evidence . (1) No Court shall take cognizance-

¶159

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

¶160

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

¶161

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

¶162

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or

¶163

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document

¶164

-42-

¶165

produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

¶166

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub- clause (ii),

¶167

except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.

¶168

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of subsection (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:

¶169

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the court of first instance has been concluded.

¶170

(3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term “Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that

¶171

-43-

¶172

Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

¶173

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of subsection (1), a court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former court, or in the case of a civil court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such civil court in situate:

¶174

Provided that-

¶175

(a) where appeals lie to more than one court, the appellate court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the court to which such court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

¶176

(b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a revenue court, such court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or revenue court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

¶177

-44-

¶178

The Apex Court proceeded to examine the provisions contained in Sections 6, 496 and 497 of Cr.P.C. Having regard to the fact that Magistrates are specifically labeled as Courts by the statutory provisions of Section 6 and therefore have to be regarded as such. It was held that Sections 496 and 497 which embrace bail matters specifically describe a magistrate while dealing therewith as Courts and these sections operate fully at all stages of the case including that when the investigation has just started. There is nothing in the context the word “Court” is used in these two sections and Section 195 which would provide an indication that it has been used in two different senses therein and in such a situation the legislature must be deemed to have used it in one and the same sense wherever it occurs in the Code. The finding of the Apex Court on the points for

¶179

-45-

¶180

consideration are found in paragraphs 50, 51 and 52

¶181

as follows:

¶182

“50. Sections 169 and 170 do not talk of the submission of any report by the police to the Magistrate, although they do state what the police has to do short of such submission when it finds at the conclusion of the investigation (1) that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate (Section 169) or (2) that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid (Section 170). In either case the final report of the police is to be submitted to the Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 173. Subsection (3) of that section further provides that in the case of a report by the police that the accused has been released on his bond (which is the situation envisaged by Section 169), the Magistrate shall make “such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit”. Now what are

¶183

-46-

¶184

the courses open to the Magistrate in such a situation? He may, as held by this Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra [(1967) 3 SCR 668 : AIR 1968 SC 117: 1968 Cri LJ 97]:

¶185

(1) agree with the report of the police and file the proceedings; or

¶186

(2) not agree with the police report and

¶187

(a) order further investigation, or

¶188

(b) hold that the evidence is sufficient to justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate and take cognizance of the offence complained of.

¶189

51. The appropriate course has to be decided upon after a consideration of the report and the application of the mind of the Magistrate to the contents thereof. But then the problem to be solved is whether the order passed by the Magistrate pertains to his executive or judicial capacity. In my opinion, the only order which can be regarded as having been passed by the Magistrate in his capacity as the supervisory authority in relation to the investigation carried out by the police is the one covered by the course 2(a). The order

¶190

-47-

¶191

passed by the Magistrate in each of the other two courses, that is, (1) and (2)(b), follows a conclusion of the investigation and is a judicial order determining the rights of the parties (the State on the one hand and the accused on the other) after the application of his mind. And if that be so, the order passed by the Magistrate in the proceeding before us must be characterised as a judicial act and therefore as one performed in his capacity as a Court.

¶192

52. The reasons which have weighed with me in coming to the conclusion arrived at in the last paragraph are equally applicable to the consideration of the question whether an order of bail passed by a Magistrate calls for the performance by him of his judicial functions. Such an order also decides the rights of the State and the accused and is made by the Magistrate after the application of his mind and therefore in the

¶193

-48-

¶194

discharge of his judicial duties, which factor constitutes it an act of a Court.”

¶195

With the said finding, the verdict of the Apex

¶196

Court on the contentious issue can be found in paragraph No.59 as follows:

¶197

“59. As the order releasing Trivedi on bail and the one ultimately discharging him of the offence complained of amount to proceedings before a Court, all that remains to be seen is whether the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code which is the subject-matter of the complaint against Trivedi can be said to have been committed “in relation to” those proceedings. Both the orders resulted directly from the information lodged by Trivedi with the police against Pathak and in this situation there is no getting out of the conclusion that the said offence must be regarded as one committed in relation to those proceedings. This requirement of

¶198

-49-

¶199

clause (b) aforementioned is also therefore fully satisfied.”

¶200

Applying the said principles, since the accused person in Crime No.445/2022 applied for bail and orders were passed, it can be said that the present case falls under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., and therefore, the rigors of the said provisions are attracted and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the FIR which was actuated by the written complaint given by Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji.

¶201

Having said so and having noticed that in the above two decisions of the Apex Court, Section 211 of the IPC fell for consideration, it would be relevant to have a look at the said provision and consider whether the said provision would apply to the present set of facts. Section 211 of the IPC reads as follows:

¶202

-50-

¶203

“ 211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure . — Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶204

There can be no manner of doubt that having regard to the principles laid down in

¶205

-51-

¶206

Kamlapati (supra), and on the admitted facts that the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence in Crime No.182/2022, renumbered as Crime No.445/2022 and having assigned Spl.C.No.27/2023 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Chitradurga, and the matter is set down for trial, the subsequent proceedings initiated at the behest of Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji, falls squarely in the teeth of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was clearly barred from taking cognizance of the offence, at the instance of a third party viz., Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji.

¶207

Before proceeding further, it should be mentioned that here is a unique case where a person not involved in Crime No.445/2022 has lodged a written complaint, alleging that the said Crime was registered against the Pontiff of the Mutt, on the basis

¶208

-52-

¶209

of false information given by Smt.Gayatri. The complaint was tendered along with a ‘pen-drive’ said to be consisting of a voice recording of conversation between Sri.Basavarajendra (Teacher) and the elder daughter of Smt.Gayatri. It was stated in the complaint that the said voice recording was being circulated in the social media and it was clear from the conversation that a conspiracy was hatched by Sri.Basavarajendra and Smt.Gayatri to falsely implicate the Pontiff of the Mutt in a sexual abuse case. Therefore, this case is very unique, in the sense that a third party, not being the accused in the previous case, is seeking to produce information in the form of evidence to demolish the allegation made by the complainant Smt.Gayatri in Crime No.445/2022, while alleging that a false case has been filed against the Pontiff of the Mutt.

¶210

-53-

¶211

In the considered opinion of this Court, if the learned Magistrate had read the written complaint, wherein it was mentioned that Smt.Gayatri had given false information in Crime No.445/2022 and the complainant Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji was seeking action against Smt.Gayatri for giving false information and implicating the Pontiff of the Mutt, the learned Magistrate would have declined to take cognizance of the complaint.

¶212

Our criminal justice system will not permit a parallel proceeding to test and verify the genuineness of the allegations made in a previous complaint. If such proceedings are permitted, the first informant Smt.Gayatri would be forced to stand trial or justify her allegations, twice. In many of the reported decisions, as noticed hereinabove, the allegations were regarding fabricating evidence or presenting evidence as genuine knowing the same to be false etc.

¶213

-54-

¶214

While dealing with such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the bar created under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is an exception to the general rule provided under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., empowering any Magistrate of First Class to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. It was held that it is a well recognized canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute of the context requires otherwise ( Abdul Waheed Khan Vs. Bhawani & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1718 ).

¶215

The reason for the enactment of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has been stated felicitously in Patel Laljibhai Somabhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1971) 2 SCC 376 as follows:

¶216

-55-

¶217

“7. The underlying purpose of enacting Sections 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 476, seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties considering themselves aggrieved by the offences mentioned in those sections to start criminal prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court’s control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of public justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of those offence and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realised. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the Court is considered to be the only party to be entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party designed ultimately to

¶218

-56-

¶219

be injured through the offence against the administration of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuading it to file the complaint. But such party is deprived of the general right recognised by Section 190 Cr.P.C., of the aggrieved parties directly initiating the criminal proceedings. The offences about which the court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that court so that it can, without embarking upon a completely independent and a fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party.”

¶220

(Emphasis supplied)

¶221

Having regard to the stated objective and purpose underlying the enactment of Section 195 of

¶222

-57-

¶223

Cr.P.C., there cannot be a second opinion that it would be impermissible in law to allow the proceedings to continue in the present case. This Court cannot permit the complainant Smt.Gayatri and the petitioners herein to stand trial and justify the allegations made by Smt.Gayatri, in two proceedings. If permitted, such proceedings would amount to travesty of justice. The registration of FIR at the hands of the respondentpolice is void ab initio . The learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint lodged by Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji, since the complaint mentioned Crime No.445/2022 and consequently, the bar provided in Section 195 (1)(b)(i) is clearly attracted.

¶224

As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Hashmath Pasha, the information provided by Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji, could be placed before the court trying the case on the basis of the complaint

¶225

-58-

¶226

filed by Smt.Gayatri, to counter her allegations. If the court comes to a conclusion that Smt.Gayatri gave false information or that the petitioners herein conspired with Smt.Gayatri or any other person to falsely implicate the Pontiff of the Mutt, then it is for the learned Judge to take a call as to whether action has to be initiated against such persons in terms of Sections 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. It is also permissible for the court to conduct summary proceedings for trial for giving false evidence in terms of Section 344 of Cr.P.C.

¶227

Before parting with this case, this Court deems it necessary to notice the dubious conduct of the respondent-Police in misdescribing or putting a wrong label of the offences, only to facilitate registration of a cognizable offence, although a plain reading of the written complaint given by Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji does not make out any

¶228

-59-

¶229

offence in Sections 384 or 366A of IPC. More importantly, the learned Magistrate should have been alive to the situation. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Mahashtra and Others (2021) 2 SCC 427 , while reiterating the role of courts in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that the investigations are not used as a tool of harassment, it was held as follows:

¶230

67. [...] Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective the harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of

¶231

-60-

¶232

ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting.

¶233

68. […] The doors of this Court cannot be closed to a citizen who is able to establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the deprivation of the liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many. We must always be mindful of the deeper systemic implications of our decisions.”

¶234

(emphasis supplied)

¶235

If our learned Magistrates do not read the complaints and the first information reports and go

¶236

-61-

¶237

about passing orders mechanically, the first line of defense would naturally be breached. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners herein that when an application for remand was filed by the respondent-police, it was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the complaint given by Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji was a counter blast to the crime registered against the Pontiff of the Mutt. Nevertheless, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to take cognizance, mechanically, unmindful of the grave consequences that befall the persons targeted in the complaint.

¶238

At this juncture, it would be relevant to notice the words of caution given by the Apex Court in the case of R.K.Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 :

¶239

-62-

¶240

“338 . We have noted Kulkarni's conduct in course of investigation and at the commencement of the trial; the fight that broke out in the court premises between some policemen and a section of lawyers over his control and custody; the manner in which Hari Shankar Yadav, a key prosecution witness turned hostile in court; the curious way in which Manoj Malik, another key witness for the prosecution appeared before the court and overriding the prosecution's protest, was allowed to depose only to resile from his earlier statement. All this and several other similar developments calculated to derail the trial would not have escaped the notice of the Chief Justice or the Judges of the Court. But there is nothing to show that the High Court, as an institution, as a body took any step to thwart the nefarious activities aimed at undermining the trial and to ensure that it proceeded on the proper course. As a result, everyone

¶241

-63-

¶242

seemed to feel free to try to subvert the trial in any way they pleased.

¶243

339. We must add here that this indifferent and passive attitude is not confined to the BMW trial or to the Delhi High Court alone. It is shared in greater or lesser degrees by many other High Courts. From experience in Bihar, the author of these lines can say that every now and then one would come across reports of investigation deliberately botched up or of the trial being hijacked by some powerful and influential accused, either by buying over or intimidating witnesses or by creating insurmountable impediments for the trial court and not allowing the trial to proceed. But unfortunately the reports would seldom, if ever, be taken note of by the collective consciousness of the Court. The High Court would continue to carry on its business as if everything under it was proceeding normally and smoothly. The

¶244

-64-

¶245

trial would fail because it was not protected from external interferences.

¶246

340. Every trial that fails due to external interference is a tragedy for the victim(s) of the crime. More importantly, every frustrated trial defies and mocks the society based on the rule of law. Every subverted trial leaves a scar on the criminal justice system. Repeated scars make the system unrecognisable and it then loses the trust and confidence of the people.

¶247

341. Every failed trial is also, in a manner of speaking, a negative comment on the State's High Court that is entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence, supervision and control of the lower courts. It is, therefore, high time for the High Courts to assume a more proactive role in such matters. A step in time by the High Court can save a criminal case from going astray. An enquiry from the High

¶248

-65-

¶249

Court Registry to the quarters concerned would send the message that the High Court is watching; it means business and it will not tolerate any nonsense. Even this much would help a great deal in insulating a criminal case from outside interferences. In very few cases where more positive intervention is called for, if the matter is at the stage of investigation the High Court may call for status report and progress reports from police headquarter or the Superintendent of Police concerned. That alone would provide sufficient stimulation and pressure for a fair investigation of the case.”

¶250

This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the

¶251

two persons named in the written complaint are not before this Court. Nevertheless, having regard to the firm opinion of this Court that the proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondent-complainant Sri.Basavaprabhu Swamiji is a deliberate attempt,

¶252

-66-

¶253

calculated to derail the trial against the Pontiff of the Mutt and it is the bounden duty of this Court to insulate the criminal case from outside interferences, as directed by the Apex Court in the case of R.K.Anand (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the registration of the FIR and all further proceedings thereto in Crime No.484/2022 of the respondent-Chitradurga Police cannot be sustained.

¶254

Consequently, the Criminal Petition No.12350/2022 is allowed . The FIR registered in Crime No.484/2022 by the respondent-Chitradurga Rural Police and all further proceedings in C.C.No.123/2023 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Chitradurga are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶255

Since the entire proceedings are quashed, the prayer made in the Writ Petition No.1280/2023 becomes infructuous . Therefore, Writ Petition

¶256

-67-

¶257

No.1280/2023 is dismissed as having become

¶258

infructuous .

¶259

A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bengaluru, to ensure that the learned Magistrates/Judges understand the efficacy of reading the criminal complaints/first information reports, before taking cognizance of a case.

¶260

In view of the disposal of petitions, pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶261

Sd/JUDGE

¶262

JT/KLY/DL

Mr. S. K. Basavarajan v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S. K. Basavarajan 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

Sri Gundu Rao D a Vs State Bank of India

Mr. William Anoop Nicodemus Vs the Government of India

Advocate Mohammed Junaid Dharwadkar Vs State of Karnataka

Bitsport Private Limited Vs Union of India

Smt Reshmi Devi Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Parishista and Alpa Vs the State of Karnataka