Dismissed

Sri Vedamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.P/87/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an FIR and charge sheet. The court held that because the FIR included cognizable offences, prior magistrate permission was not needed, and contradictions in statements are matters for trial, not quashing. The petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed. The FIR and charge sheet stand maintained.

Sri Vedamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 87 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VEDAMURTHY S/O VEERABASAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) R/AT NO.8/14, 3RD CROSS, K.V.LAYOUT, JAYANAGARA 4TH BLOCK EAST, BENGALURU - 11.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR MS. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. B.M.HANUMANTHAIAH S/O SRI MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1267, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.04.2016 BEFORE THE GIRINAGAR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶19

UNDER SECTIONS 506, 34, 468, 420, 504, 467, 464, 471 AND 463 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4

¶23

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.92/2016 arising out of the FIR registered by Girinagara police station, Bengaluru, charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 34, 468, 420, 504, 467, 464, 471 and 463 of IPC.

¶24

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 - B.M.Hanumanthaiah filed the first information before the Girinagar police station, Bengaluru on 23.4.2016 alleging that, he is an allottee of the BDA site bearing No.161 measuring 20 x 30 ft, at 3rd stage,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶28

Banashankar, Hoskerehalli village, formed out of

¶29

Sy.No.19. The BDA executed lease cum agreement in favour of the complainant, later he said to be executed GPA in favour of the first accused No.1, Channaiah, on 12.7.2011 in favour of the accused No.1. Subsequently, it was cancelled on 30.1.2012, but later when went near the site, he found the accused No.1 was constructing the house on the site belonging to the complainant. On enquiry, he came to know accused no.1 got created the column No.5 A in the GPA and got executed the sale deed in his favor by virtue of the GPA executed by the complainant and was putting up the construction. The complainant when went near the spot on 16.3.2016, the accused No.1 to 3 (they are not before the court) said to be abused in filthy language and when same was questioned, the accused No.3-Karthik said to be made a mobile call to the present petitioner who said to be a retired IAS officer, working as Deputy Secretary in BDA. In turn this petitioner said to have abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened to do away with him, the

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶31

complainant came near the site. Based upon this, police registered the FIR and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. During the pendency of the petition, police filed charge sheet and the same is challenged before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended on two grounds, the first contention is that the alleged offence made out against the petitioner accused No.4 is for the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, which is non-cognizable offence, compoundable one, and bailable offence, triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, registering the FIR, the police might have sent the information to the Magistrate, under Section 155 (1) of Cr.P.C. and could have obtained the permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. then could have proceed with the investigation. Therefore, without obtaining the permission of the Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. , the FIR and the charge sheet against the petitioner accused No.4 is not sustainable, hence prayed for quashing criminal proceedings.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended,

¶34

the second leg of arguments is that only bald allegation against the petitioner, that he has abused the complainant in the mobile phone and as per the complaint filed by the complainant, that after the quarrel when himself and his wife were talking near the site, little away, at that time CW3 and CW4 came there and questioned and they advised to file the complaint. Whereas, the statement of CW3 and CW4 - Nanjunda and Vishwas, reveals they are as good as eye witness to the incident and they pacified the quarrel. These witnesses saw when the accused No.3 given telephone to the complainant and the present petitioner said to have abused him and threatened him in filthy language. There is clear contradiction between the statement of the complaint as well as the statement of the CW3 and CW4. Therefore, the statements were contrary to each other and hence it falsifies the case of the complainant and hence prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the petition and contended that this petitioner being BDA officer, threatened the complainant in filthy language and abused and also threatened with dire consequence, which attracts Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also objected the petition, contending that by inserting the column No.5A in the GPA, got created the documents by accused No.1 and by mentioning the recital in GPA for giving power to the accused No.1 for presenting the sale deed and keeping registers in his name and thereby he has created the documents and placed before the authority, which attracts Section 465, 420 and other offences. Therefore, matter requires for trial, hence prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶38

Having heard the arguments and perused the

¶39

records, the point that arises for my consideration is;

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶41

Whether the petitioner made out case for quashing criminal proceedings?

¶42

Now coming to the second ground urged by the

¶43

learned counsel for the petitioner is that, that there is contradiction between the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, the complainant first informant has stated in his complaint, that he went to the spot on 16.3.2016 and the accused No.1 was found constructing the house and on questioning, he has abused in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were also present, then accused No.3 said to be telephoned to this present petitioner, who said to be a retired BDA officer and he said to be abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequence and that he will teach lesson, if he came near the site. He further stated when himself and his wife were discussing on the road, near the place of occurrence,

¶44

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶45

at that time Nanjunda and Vishwas, i.e., CW3 and CW4 questioned as to what happened and when they narrated the same and they advised to file the complaint. The charge sheet material, statement of CW3 and CW4 referred by the learned counsel, both of them have stated when they came near the site at 11. a.m. on 16.3.2016, there was quarrel between complainant and accused Nos.1 to 3. Later, accused no.3 gave a call to the petitioner and the petitioner said to have abused him in filthy language and threatened. These two witnesses have stated, as good as they were present at the spot, they have seen the

¶46

mobile phone given by the accused no.3 to the complainant, where the accused-this petitioner said to have had conversation and threatened the complainant. Of course there may be a contradiction, between the first information and the 161 statement of the witnesses. But the contradictions and any omission or improvement cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, until the contradictions or omissions shall be confronted to the witnesses or maker of the statement under Section

¶47

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶48

145 of the Indian Evidence Act. At this stage, the court cannot quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of contradiction between the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. It is has to be decided only on the merits after putting the witnesses in the cross examination, into the witness box. Therefore, the second contention of the learned senior counsel cannot be acceptable on the ground the charge sheet and FIR shall be quashed.

¶49

The first leg of argument of the learned counsel is that the Section 504 and 506 of IPC is non-cognizable offence where the permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., is required for the purpose of registering FIR and to file the charge sheet. It is well settled by this court in various decisions for registering the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, the prior permission of Magistrate is required, otherwise the proceedings is not sustainable under the law. Learned

¶50

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶51

counsel also relied upon the order of the coordinate bench of this court:

¶52

In the case of Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition NO.100555/2014.

¶53

There is no double as per Section 155 (1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C., the prior permission is mandatory for the purpose of registering FIR for the offences under Section 504 and 506 of IPC. However, the provisions of Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C. where it refers, when a case relates to two or more offences of which atleast one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be cognizable case, not withstanding that the other offences are noncognizable. Herein this case, the FIR was registered not only against this petitioner only for the offence punishable under Sections 504 or 506 of IPC, but the FIR was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Section 463, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The offences are cognizable offences. Therefore, when a cognizable offence and non-cognizable offences are made

¶54

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶55

out, the police need not require to seek prior permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. This court also held in various judgments, when a cognizable case and noncognizable case are made out in one case, there is no need for the police to obtain the permission to investigate the matter or registering the FIR. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, also holds no water. Therefore, I am of the view, the permission for registering FIR under Section 504 and 506 of IPC including the cognizable offence under Section 420 of IPC and other offences, the police need not require any permission from the Magistrate for registering the FIR. Therefore, this contention is also not acceptable.

¶56

Considering the documents, it is very serious allegation made against the accused No.1, that he has created documents while inserting paragraph No.5a in the gift and he himself created a power under the GPA, even though the GPA was cancelled against him, he has got

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:36887 CRL.P No. 87 of 2020

¶58

12 -

¶59

created the documents or sale deed in his favour. Ofcourse, the petitioner said to be an IAS Officer, at that time, he was working in the BDA as a Deputy Secretary, there is chances of collusion with the accused No.1, is not ruled out. Therefore, at this stage, it is not a fit stage for either quashing the FIR or charge sheet against this petitioner. he is required to face the trial and the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to dismissed.

¶60

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

AKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri Vedamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vedamurthy 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

M/S P Hastimal and Sons Vs Sri P Tejraj Sharma

Sri G Narayanappa Vs Smt M Nagarathnamma

Sri B K Gopala Vs Smt Nagarathnamma

P v Sandeep Kumar Vs v S Srinivas

P v Sandeep Kumar Vs Bhagyalakshmi

P v Sandeep Kumar Vs Bhagyalaksmi