IN 'I"H17I HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
§)A'_1_'EI) THIS THE 91%: DAY OF SEPTEMBE-i:§':§00 9,
BEFORE
THE HON'E3LE3 MR. JUST}-CE'AR_AI,I
CRIMINAL PETITION NO:}--_1A2O9/2'CO4'~ VA
BE'I'\?'v"I3Z EN:
1
Sem"1pang'i V
.$/<)¢J.Krish:1ap;)z~i_ V
Agged about 38 years,
R/0 San:andur"' - "
village, 'K.a§3aba._Hob1i " A _
/-'meka! B:--_1;:1ga1Qref.'I7£.u1t
rX;2pé1;ii%"G$wda "
S/0" C,?ij_nnéj.ppa' ' ' _'
';f\f__{Ei¥d ab(;1jjt._}3<'3 '
£}i§i2'ufag'e.r_a Village
Ai'1"c.l_g:«;11.VTq. ._Barigg_11L0re Rural
vSI'1'11ivas '=.._ _____
r,)'V+'Y§_-zllappa
35 years.
' -Rf/'-.5)VA.fi~.i.bele
A A11ék:»13T:"I'aluk
£_'3"'cimg';1l0r€
Réghu
Major,
' R/oAt't1'bcle
Ar1c,-Ra} 'I'aIuk
B211 xgalore PETITIONERS
(By Sri Basavaprabhu SP3.ti£, Adv.)
C-.{""'~r-~.......y..,
AND
1 Ravi Shankar C R
Station House Officer
Railway Police
2 Cheluvaraj
Station House Officer
Attibele Police Station _
Attibele
Anekal Tq
Bangalore Rural g
3 Narayanappa T V; .
S/0 late Sonnappa " T A
Aged 40 ye'ar__s _ -
R/o samaedur Villge g so
Aneka1--~'Fq " .
Banga1or_e" Rural. D'i-st, ' . :
4 State of .Karfn~atakaa.by-- C
its Public 'Prose'c1ito_r"«
Highfzourt B_uiIdi'n.g'§
.~AriekaI"t"o1ice" Station.
Eafigaloreg « eeeee _ . RESPONDENTS
1 Sri C V Sudhindra for R3)
“””~.Th.~jiS. is filed u/s.-482 Cr.P.C praying to
‘quash ~ the entire proceedings initiated against the
petiationers in PCR No. 82 / 2003 on the file of the Add}.
Anekal, and consequently quash the FIR
_ bearing Cr.N0. 23/ 2003 on the file of 1st respondent.
This Crl. Petition coming on for dictating order
» it this day, the Court passed the following:
c-°-f””””~”**x__-
3. Stated in brief, the undisputed facts leading to
the present petition are as under:
(a) The deceased Sonnappa,-fthe.ifatherhof»
respondent No.3 Narayanappa died’ V’orv’_’abodt»u
6.8.2002. His dead body
This very 3rd respondent fiiedthis cor:2}§1aint’3’b.eforece
the poiice of Baiyyaphanahalii. On
the basis of the saied—-eompiaint’ a-casei in Crime
No.11 /2002 of’-tire’ said P.S. came to be
registered against-_ the elder
bi’O{h3€*1″H.:'(Djf herein and
of ‘ the said Muniyappa,
__:’_’o_r Sections 302 and 201 IPC
for the death of the deceased
Eitmnappa;
V {‘l.’:a)”-V.,fIf_hereafter, the said case came to be
to Attlbeie RS. on the ground of
jurisdiction. Therefore, the said case
. *:;to be registered as Crime No.7/2002 of
z lattiheie P.S. against both the same accused
vnanieiy Muniyappa and Rathnarnma for the said
<)i'fei1<.:es. After investigation, the said police
subrnitt.ed charge sheet against the said accused
for the said offences. This 31" respondent
€
complaint that was fiied by this third resp_o_ndent~
Narayanappa before the said Police, he
No.82/ 2003 alleging against petitioner-[3Nosiieiiiil..e:’£he order dated 18.11.2003 passed in the
satd~.i3C§I€V No.82/O3 by the learned JMFC, Anekal is
” « f ” I?ICii’:”_1?.iC1iI’2(Ibl€.
i3. I have perused the entire averments in the
compiaiut filed by the third respondent-Narayanappa in
afx.
17. The learned Counsel for the third reVsvr)oinr;1_ent
has produced copy” of the judgment passedfyin
s.c. No.114/2004, wherein both Muniya,v§;::;ga”‘~é.nd hiss.
wife Rathnamma. who were the o_’ne1yt’ aeeu.sed”‘t.h~e’re1Ln,
came to be acquitted o:f*-..};.)oth–“-v.theV offent:es…nnde1*.t’
Sections 302 and 201 them in
respect of the murderftof On
perusal of t.he_:said seen that the
accused I}To anything in her
stat’e1nr3.t.1t_”teeorded 313 Cr.P.C. in the
said. sending her telegram to
the p(>1ie’e-«–.s_V%ot7 intirnating them that the
pes;1t;:;(;);§m~5 hé”rej.n,….«’committed the murder of the
‘ detrerasectt Sohnappa. If she had knowledge that these
j;§etii:’i<:)r1ers:€_;3ecused had committed murder of the
de(:ea~se.ti. nothing prevented her from disclosing the
before the Trial Court in the said case white her
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Q-'"-('\'\"%—-°-\,
18. Further, copy of deposition of the third
respondent herein, recorded in the said case, as
is also produced by the learned counsel V’
respondent. On perusal of the said ‘.itll:c’oi1lcig
be seen that he has only stated thatlihe
know how his deceased It is V
pertinent to note that as_onfL’h’e*. recording of his
said evidence, he [Sm filed his
present PCR to be so that
by that time his brother»
Muniyappa (who were
accusedliril the ”that it was these petitioners —
accused. wh’o..,vcom”mitted the murder of his deceased
. iiiiothing preylented him from deposing anything
agaijnslt-.th.epsc.A:’petitioners and also from producing the
_ releVant,.__”doefiments in respect of the murder of the
H ” ‘ = Vpdeceased’.
19. As could be seen from the complaint in PCR
u:f1\To.82/2003, the averrnents therein do not disclose any
‘___m___£””*<~a–',-s
help to the complainant to show that it was these
petitioners who conspired together and murdered-~-__the
deceased–Sonnappa.
23. Placing reliance on the decision of 3
Supreme Court in the case of
or’ UTTAR PRADESH AND oIHEREs.__r3e-perteti’V_-ih’ »(2~0eé}~a
Supreme Court Cases 409, t11e”‘iearned._c0Li.nsée1’tor the
third respondentco1aipiain.airit’ that the
Magistrate can order a and take
suitable steps” fo’ij.c:i1pr0peripirii/e’stiga’tion.:Aby invoking the
proVisior1s*–of .Se€'{i:i.,:o11.’v4it-5:6{3)’Cr.P.C. In the said case
before theeflonthleédSupreme Court, the son of the
was .’fo’u«r1.d_..dead on 23.08.2003 and a report
~st1br’I1i.tted-.,0n 29.08.2003 to the effect that the
deathdof deceased was due to accident or suicide
rtotmhomicidai one and therefore the appellant
“:dt’i1erei:fi, aggrieved by the said report, approached the
Court by filing a Writ Petition and the said writ
ifpetition was dismissed. Oh those facts, the I-Ion’b1e
¢……f”””””‘”
24
Supreme Court observed at para Nos.11 and 17 as
under:
11. “In this connection we would like to S115¥.t…6._”
if a person has a grievance that the police
is not registering his FIR _1_l.17ld_e1″
Cr.PC, then he can approach=,the-.Sii»p4erin.tendentV S
of Police under Section _ 154{.3]”‘VCr.P,C’.l, S’ an
application in writing. thatdoes
any satisfactory result iseinsel t’ha_t either
the FIR is still not«-register2:eci,”that even after
registering itono held, it is
open to tlgpipepiol-_ to file an
applica§tiori<«..V1ii11Ci,eIt 'l._55_(3) Cr PC before
the' concerned. If such an
application' Section 156(3) is filed before
the l\/Iagiistr-a.te',: the Magistrate can direct the FIR
regis't'ere_d…and also can direct a proper
A to be made, in a case where,
the aggrieved person, no proper
A was made. The Magistrate can also
uncier the same provision monitor the
S 'S investigation ensure a proper investigation."
– “In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr PC is wide
enough to include all such powers in a
;-….(“”””°”‘~–“”‘
25
Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring __a
proper investigation, and it includes the poweritoh.
order registration of an FIR and of
proper investigation if the Magistrate is ‘satisfied
that a proper investigation ha.s””noté
is not being done by the police.;’_”tS’ection
Cr PC, though briefly worded, our opinion,
Very Wide and it will include’ all st1ch”‘incid’enta1
powers as are neCe.ssaI’.f”ior:”ensuringVa’ proper
investigation.”
24. Sufficiepgit observations made by cannot be made applicavblelvto' case, inasmuch as, the having filed his
complaint beforethe ‘police concerned against his own
llvbrotherlulanVd«i_sister;in–law alleging therein that they
Aiconin1it’ted.,Vpinilivider of the deceased Sonnappa, could not
V _ mair”i–tai:.i,. during the pendency of investigation on his
coinplaint, his subsequent private complaint
.l in respect of the same incident of murder of the
” “deceased, against the present petitioners alleging that it
was not his brother and sister~in~law who committed
r’°*~»–»-{P”‘””‘””””
criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely
on the premise that one or two ingredients have-=___r1ot
been stated with details. It is further observed
therein that for quashing an FIR [a
permitted only in extremely rarefcases) l_t}i1e -:information
in the complaint must be so bereftldof eve»n;cthe”
facts which are absolutely nec’essary foi’..tn’a}f:-in,€Dfv;:o1iVt the
offence.
26. Even follovdng ::Val_3’p§.je{3′.v.observations of
considered opinion that the
avermentsV’c_ornpl.aii1t (in PCR 82 / 03] of the third
.—.ppvrespogndenticornplainant do not disclose even least
rn.ianim_urr1″ifactsconstituting any of the offences alleged
against thexfpeltitioners herein. Therefore. the above said
lidecisionllof the Hon’b1e Supreme Court does not support
of the 3″‘ respondent –« complainant.
(‘M-~–§”\”””””””
(1) 2009 AIR SCW 60 (Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs.
State of Punjab and others with J.P.StnglVa–.and
others Vs. State of Punjab and others)__”‘:
(2) (2008) 5 sec 730 (B. Nagabhus’h:ar:amS”‘
State of Karnataka)
(3) A.I.R. 2000 so 2988 (staaéqf Wes’t.”_,F3engaz:.:t/’st’V’-,
Mir Mohammad Omararld othezfs”ee1ie.et&:, V
(4) A.I.R. 2001 S:(,’~..143l3″”V(Sti:;ha’SinghvVVs§x State of
Puryab) S S A
(5) 1978tC;¢L’koz.5.}tA1:388i ‘4-V A;3i;R_.ss»i’1976 so 1672 {
Devarapalli and
others Vs. Narvayoartat
(6) 1980 Crl. s 12S0’-:V{Su;oretr1e..t3ourt) (State of
sgcaamggnd Shankar)
(7}.. A.I.R. Bala Vs. Suresh
Kumar anotothefs} ”
V (8) 753 (Sam Mittal Vs. Government of
S’ ” . ‘I*ZaI’nCLtaka; H
,_,,___§”””‘*-“”‘\….-………
his earlier complaint in Crime No.11/2002 of the said
Railway P.S. [ which subsequently came to be numbered
as Crime No.9/2002 of Attibele RS. on being
transferred from Railway R8. of Attibele P.S.) in,
of the same incident of death of the same. ~
Sonnappa. y
34. The facts in the said
Supreme Court Were; ” lwvhen a.”i\/linister to ” V
inaugurate the evening branehtrf la-._Co–olperatiive bank
at Kannur in the State” of,.l3K;eralagiptwo incidents
occurred =at—-places and, during the said
incidents.flunderrlthelordersl of the Executive Magistrate
“St1.p_ervintendent of Police, the police did
they also fired and consequently, five
several persons suffered injuries. Two
lgcrimes~ to be registered in respect of the said
Crime No. 353/ 1994 in respect of the
incident at one place for the offences under sections
143, 148, 332, 353, 324 and 307 read with section
{
43
charge of a police station, shall be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction, and be
read over to the information; and every such
information, whether given in writing or reduced
to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by
person giving it, and the substance thereo,f”s’hali._’_ ‘A ;.
be entered in a book to be kept by such offiCer,ini’
such form as the State Governrrie.”:t::j~..ni;:1_y«.A
prescribe in this behayf
(2) A copy of the informationyfas
under subsection {1} shall be given j’orti2§tv2’th,
free of cost, to the informant,”
{3} Any p€TSOfi::.CiggTi:€3t)édVa-1fefuSt3llHOl;l the
part of an officer in-ch–arg_e§Q’F a’-po..l_ice_ station to
record the information refe_rred.–=to’irt:sub–»section
{1} may .seno’:fl_thfe ‘substance of such information,
in writing .and by post, ‘t’o-the,Superintendent of
Polir:e..,,concer#?ied 5’ ‘i,-f..,.SCitisfied that such
information, discloses the commission of a
cognizable “either investigate the
case’ ,Vhirr%zse{f_ or”-dir.ec’t”an investigation to be
made by any policerofficer subordinate to him, in
the yymanrierlproviiiied by this Code, and such
shali”ha.v_e«’ail the powers of an officer in
_ “charge_ of the police station in relation to that
the above discussion it follows
“that under the scheme of the provisions of
Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 182, 169, 170 and
‘A CrPC only the earliest or the first
_ information in regard to the commission of a
‘cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of
Sections 154 CrPC. Thus 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
(…_…_SI”””‘”-1»–…
45
before the police immediateiy after the occurrence of the
incident of murder of the deceased and another in___PCR
N082/2003, about one year three months after
his said Complaint before the police and that ”
the investigation on his earlier complaint
progress. When the investigationddofdthe cas-e.regi.stered’v.
on his own complaint was pe1i.di”ng in Crime
of Attibele P.S., third ¥i’espond’eIit,:’ heing con1piainant-
informant therein, could hiaxre recording
of his further~’statement V161 Cr.P.C. by
the _heVmcou1d have approached
the learned _ Nfagidstrateiih”seeking direction to the
Investigating’ Officer record his further statement if
his reqtlinestx for recording such statement was rejected
theft Investigating Officer. He did not chose
V dd _ to do so.–..”Bes’ides this, he did not say anything against the
_petitior1er’s herein when he was examined as PW 20 in the
case No. 114/2004 wherein charge sheet was
submitted by the Police after investigation in Crime
“_______§”\.r’–…’~—–
46
No.9/2002 ol’Attibele P.S. which had been registered on the
basis of his said earlier complaint before the police.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
said private complaint by the third respondent isjc’lea.r*e V’
of the process of law. –
37. As on this date, the said I-ssesstehs…’case}-shesT
already been disposed of a:r-‘d’the acciised
been acquitted of both the off_eVnces.._pund’er:sections 302
and 201 of let: with whteh ‘Aethsyjitwsieeherged for the
alleged murder ‘Ca’fv’.th€: – Under
these circumstaricese.vééyifjtheh investigation in Crime
No.23/20(53–._VofV Ba-iyVyapp:.anahalli Railway Police Station
‘~ to he ‘rvegistered pursuant to the order dated
in PCR No.82/2003 filed by the 3rd
re’sp.odndentr:’1.Vhierein is allowed to be proceeded with.
‘i.Virtua1lyA’1;t amounts to rednvestigation of the case in
of murder of the deceased Sonnappa which is
not permissible under law as held by Hon’b1e Supreme
it Court in Mithabhai Pachabhai Patel & Others Vs. State
<
47
of Gujarath reported in (2009) 6 SCC 332(D). is
observed in the said case as under:
“D. Criminal Procedure Code, 197:3; ~
Reinvestigation — Perrnissibility.~—««~<__:~..
investigation and reinvestigation; «,d'i_stinqu'ishedV
Held. both stand on different footitig.
distinction exists betvv-even a hreinvevst-igation and " V
further investigation –V____Supi*e_Vr1'1e..C–ourt High
Court can offence
investigated and/ .'/_'.:«4j.j:nvestigated W.
However; forbidden in law,
no superiorl[_cou'rtZwou1d.3'ordinariiy issue direction
of :v'4..dConstitution of India — Arts.32
and 226. }nt'e«rferenee in criminal matters –~
inves'ti.gation._–k'3Vcope of power with respect to"
the above observations, E am of the
that investigation in Cr.No.23/O3 of
the said"V.Rai1vvay P.S. cannot be allowed to be continued
flfas amounts to reinvestigation which is not
' permissible in law.
48
39. Further, Sri. Basava Prabhu Patil, the learned
Senior counsel has also relied on the decision
case of BA. Srinivasa Guptha and others
Karnataka by Superintendent xof “Politic .;
reported in ILR 2002 Karnataiéa 1’3is5.’@_’n.eed
discuss in detail the rinci”}es”i.1aid dow*n.’-in’°the said
p p _
judgment.
40. F’ or Vvthetfiresent petition
is allowed. No.82/2003 on the
file of’ Bangalore Rural
Districtzand. in Crime No.23/2003 of
BaiayyappanahailiVE:aiiWay”‘.P.S. which came to be registered
~..purs§an;;.r,:to’the orderdated 18.11.2003 passed in PCR No.
filed by the third respondent herein are
heiehfi The respondent No.3 Narayanappa shall
spay cost Rs.2,000/- to each of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4.
it P1*J’E’/tsn*
301/ ‘5
Iuc;Tg’3*;