Allowed

Parashuram @ Prashant Kallapa Kamble v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023CRL.RP/100163/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal revision petitions seeking to discharge police accused Ne.4 and 5. It set aside the Trial Court order rejecting discharge applications held at Belagavi.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting discharge was set aside and petitioners were discharged from proceedings under Sections 120(B), 342, 384 IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13 PC Act.

Parashuram @ Prashant Kallapa Kamble Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶6

CRL.R.P. NO.100127/2015 C/W

¶7

CRL.R.P.No.100163/2015

¶8

IN CRL.RP NO 100127 OF 2015

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SHRI SIDDANATH S/O TAMMANNA PADAGANNAVAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE R/O: OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DCRE, BELAGAVI

¶11

…..PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

¶15

¶16

S.P. BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI

¶17

MAMATHA

¶18

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.02.17 14:33:08 +0530

¶19

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIKKODI

¶20

R.1 TO R.3 DELETED, CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.06.2016

¶21

POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR BASAVESHWAR CHOWK POLICE STATION NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶22

….RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED IVADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS & SPL.JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI, IN SPL. CASE NO.141/2011 IN CRIME NO.51 & 56 OF 1999 OF BCPS ON AN APPLICATION U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER BE DISCHARGED FROM THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SPL. CASE NO.141/2011, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 342, 384 R/W 34 OF IPC & SECTIONS 7, 12, 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT.

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶27

CRL.RP NO 100163 OF 2015

¶28

BETWEEN

¶29

PARASHURAM @ PRASHANT KALLAPA KAMBLE AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT R/O NANADI VILLAGE, TALUK CHIKKODI DISTRICT. BELAGAVI

¶30

.....PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.)

¶32

AND

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI

¶34

SUPT. OF POLICE BELAGAVI

¶35

DY.S.P. CHIKKODI, DT: BELAGAVI

¶36

R.1 TO R.3 DELETED, CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.06.2016

¶37

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR BASAVESHWAR CHOWK POLICE STATION NIPPANI, R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶38

.….RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶40

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.05.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS & SPL. JUDGE, (PCA) BELAGAVI ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL. CASE NO.141/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120-B, 342 AND 384 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND U/S 7, 12, 13(1)(d) R/W SEC.13(2) OF P.C. ACT, 1988.

¶41

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AND RESERVED ON 07.12.2022 AT DHARWAD BENCH, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

3 - CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶43

COMMON ORDER

¶44

Criminal Revision Petition Nos.100127/2015 and 100163/2015 are filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.4 and 5 respectively, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2015 in Spl.Case No.141/2011 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA) at Belagavi.

¶45

For the sake of convenience, the rankings of the parties will be considered henceforth according to their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶46

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶47

It is the case of the complainant Sri.Balasaheb Malagounda Bennali has filed a written complaint on 26.04.1999 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Belagavi, stating that, he is the resident of Pune, his wife Smt.Shashikala is the native of Nippani, Belagavi District. It is further stated that, he had entered into agreement of sale with one Vibhute and others and he approached Sanjay Danachand Gadavat for selling the property. The owner of the land Vibhute lodged a complaint in PCR.No.21/1999 before the JMFC, Nippani, which was referred to BCPS, Nippani and it was registered in Crime No.20/1999 and it was referred to Circle

¶48

4 - CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶49

Inspector of Police, Nippani for investigation. To conduct the investigation, the complainant Sri.Balasaheb Malagounda Bennali was summoned by the accused No.4. It is alleged by the complainant that, after he was called to the Police Station, he was detained in the Police Station illegally and he was coerced and extorted to sign the documents and stamp papers. Accordingly, he signed the stamp papers. Further it is alleged that, the accused No.5 – Parashuram, at the instance of accused No.4, demanded the complainant to pay illegal gratification of Rs.32,000/- to file ‘B’ Report in respect of Crime No.20/1999 which was filed against him.

¶50

After lodging the complaint by the complainant, the matter was referred to Superintendent of Police, Belagavi and again the Superintendent of Police referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chikkodi for investigation and it was registered in Cr.No.51/1999, thereafter, the same complainant lodged one more complaint before Hadapsur Police Station, Pune against the same persons and along with others, the complaint came to be transferred to BCPS, Nippani and it was registered in Cr.No.56/1999. Both the cases were clubbed together and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shanwad,

¶51

¶52

CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶53

conducted the investigation and it was completed in the year 2000. The charge sheet came to be filed on 26.09.2011.

¶54

The Trial Court issued summons to the petitioners herein. The petitioners have entered appearance through their respective counsels and filed applications for discharge against the cases stated supra. The Trial Court after appreciating the arguments advanced by the respective parties, opined that, there are grounds to proceed against the petitioners and dismissed the discharge applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶55

Heard Sri.V.M.Sheelavant and Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar,

¶56

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh B.Chigari, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶57

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.56/1999 of Nippani BCPS. A complaint came to be lodged by one Mr.Balasaheb Malagounda Bennali, stating that he was coerced and extorted to sign two documents on stamp paper stating that he has to pay a sum of Rs.22.50 lakh to Ashok Chandrashekar Vibhuthe and Prathap Appasaheb Patil.

¶58

- 6 - CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶59

It is further submitted that, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.100127/2015 was working as CPI of Nippani Police Station, petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.100163/2015 was working as Police Constable attached to the police station stated supra. It is alleged that, a complaint came to be lodged against these petitioners that they were demanding a sum of Rs.32,000/- from the complainant stating that, they would file ‘B’ Report in Crime No.20/1999. The complainant paid the said amount through the cheque and it was encashed at the instance of accused No.5 who was working as Constable of Nippani Police Station.

¶60

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, in Crime No.56/1999 of Nippani BCPS, there are six accused persons. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5. The departmental enquiry was held against accused Nos.4 and 5 and in the said departmental enquiry, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.32,000/- has not been proved and both have been exonerated from the departmental enquiry. Since both have been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, proceeding with criminal case is a futile exercise and continuing the criminal case would be absolutely unnecessary and waste of precious

¶61

¶62

CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶63

judicial time. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to allow the petitions.

¶64

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that, the order passed by the Trial Court is appropriate and there are prima facie allegations made out against the petitioners herein, therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the discharge applications.

¶65

It is further submitted that, the allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature and there is documentary evidence for having received the illegal gratification. Such being the fact, merely because both the petitioners have been exonerated from the departmental enquiry, it would not be appropriate to absolve the criminal case against the petitioners. Making such submissions, learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petitions.

¶66

After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available on record, the point which arise for my consideration are:

¶67

i) Whether the order of rejection of discharge passed by the Trial Court, on applications

¶68

8 - CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶69

filed under section 227 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners is sustainable?

¶70

ii) Whether the petitioners have made out grounds to interfere with the order of rejection of discharge passed by the Trial Court?

¶71

Before adverting to the other facts of the case, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamilnadu v. N.Suresh Rajan¹ , held that while considering the application for discharge, the Court has to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and it does not have to consider whether there is a ground for conviction has been made out. In other words, at the stage of considering the application for discharge, the Court should not enter upon the process of evaluating of evidence by deciding its worthiness or credibility. The Court has to see whether the prosecution has made out prima facie case or not.

¶72

By considering the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also scope and interference by the Courts in dealing with discharge application, this Court need not elaborately

¶73

1 2014 (1) Crimes 1 (SC)

¶74

¶75

CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶76

discuss the gist of the case and allegations against the accused / petitioners. However, the Court should analyze as to whether

¶77

the allegations made against the accused prima facie satisfies its requirement to proceed with the case.

¶78

It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused No.4 being the Circle Inspector of Police attached to Nippani Police Station and he was the Investigating Officer in respect of Crime No.20/1999 of BCPS and accused No.5 being a Police Constable was assisting accused No.4 in the investigation of the case. According to complainant, both have demanded Rs.32,000/- to file ‘B’ Report in respect of Crime No.20/1999. He further states that, he paid illegal gratification of Rs.32,000/- by way of cheque and it was encashed through his banker.

¶79

Be that as it may, the departmental enquiry was held against the petitioners herein and it has ended as not proved and accused Nos.4 and 5 were exonerated from the allegations made against them. It is to be noted here that, in a departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has to prove the case on the basis of preponderance of probability, however, in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the case

¶80

10 -

¶81

CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶82

beyond all reasonable doubt. The complainant had been examined in the departmental enquiry and also cross-examined by the DGO and in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has opined that, the cheque in question which was alleged to have obtained by accused No.5 issued by the complainant stated that “to make sub-contract site payment” and it is admitted by the complainant. Therefore, based on the instrument, even if full-fledged trial is held, there is a remote possibility of conviction of accused Nos.4 and 5. The allegations made against accused No.5 and alleged demand made by accused No.4 cannot be accepted in view of the order of the departmental enquiry. Once the accused Nos.4 and 5 have been exonerated from the departmental enquiry, the allegations against the accused persons in criminal case requires to be considered as not proved and in view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the accused Nos.4 and 5 deserve to be discharged from the same allegations. In view of the said observations and also considering the endorsement on the back side of the cheque alleged to have been issued for payment of illegal gratification requires to be set aside as not acceptable.

¶83

- 11 - CRL.RP No.100127/2015 C/W CRL.RP.No.100163/2015

¶84