IN THE men COURT 01:' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY 01:' AUGUST. :2'Oe9_j;--.f: _ Before THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE Hk,rLU;rA17:"--.e' T Criminal Petition No§s.135/zone, " Between: 1. Sri.Shivanand, _A . s/0 Basavantappa Keriyava1.".,_ ' aged about 42 years,' * ' = OCC: Advocate, I V . R/0. Vidyanagaf,"H1.ib§i;--_V ' _ _ Tq: I-Iubli, Dist:__Di_1_a;mrad.' _ '_ * 2. Sri.Maha+:1evapp'a;V_., S/C Ka}}a[ppa Koni,*'f'-~.AL'A , Aged about"46'yea'1's_," V' . Occ: Personaibé/Tanager, " « _. Samyukta Karriataka Daily Newspaper, _~ ,R/ 0 X-Iufibii, Tq: Hubfii, V Dist; Dhafwéid. A """ PETITIONERS . (By Adv.) * w._The Stateefl Karnataka, Rama Rao, * By its,1?ubi'iC Prosecutor, I-'Eigh_»Ctpurt Building, ._ ¢1_BaingaIore. 29/ S/o M. Srinivas Rao. R/o. No.9, Corporation Building, Broadway, Hubli. Tq: I-Iubli, Dist: Dharwad. (amended vide C.O. dt:11.12.06). RESPONDENTS-
(By Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath, I-ICGP for R1,
Sri. Shrikanth A. Neelopant, Adv. For R2.)
This Criminal Petition is filed under s.éis2??:ir’.’Pc}pg4ay’gng gtash
the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.l6l”1/20065 the’; file of
JMFC ii Court, I-Iubli.
The petition Corning on for. .hearin.g.t’his”=day, made the
following: ‘
QRDQR
in this petition; ithiei.” pet_.itio1’:e’rs”«.haife._._sought to quash the
proceedings pending Court, I-Iuloli, in
C.C.No.l611/061
2. It is stated tvha’t_e4orn’pla..iVnant M.Ramarao S/o. Srinivas Rao,
whovéis said have appeared before Labour Court on behalf of labourers
on aridflx/hile he was cross–examining the management
fwitness Htpetitiorierjv..nol;”fZ?Mahadev Koni, the Counsel appearing for
lfiilanvagernentipet.itio’ner no.1 raised objections alleging that irrelevant
were being put and prayed the court to direct said M. Ramarao
t_io._all_oW~such irrelevant questions. At that time the complainant
E””‘V4ipRarriar*ao–7having lost control on himself shouted at petitioner no.1 as
W.
La)
“you get out non–sense”. At the same,he instigated one Jakir I-Iussain —
Assistant of Ramarao, who was sitting in the court. On such instigation
said Jakir Hussain lifted a chair and threw the same against petitioner–1
in the open court. Thereafter, he along with Ramarao went nearthe ls:
petitioner and caught hold of his neck and threatened
with dire consequences and posed threat to his life and_al~so’tried to
PW. 2 by strangulation.
3. After the alleged incident complaint_ filed by–“.petitionE;r “r-.of1,
against Ramarao and Jakir I-Iussain the i*Sub+Ui5rban Police in
Crime No.121 /2002. As such poljice are’isaiidi’- havpe recorded statement
of Presiding Officer, typist, c1erks,,_ i.a_bour.–‘«..:lnis:pec.~tors, Peons and
advocates who were “accident. Thereafter, police
have filed a charge 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w
section 34 of Il?C1 ciasevwas committed to Sessions Court by
JMFCEV1 “Couiit:’HiI’bli,’~ which iflsiipending in S.C.No.5 1 / 2003.
the complaint filed by petitioner no.1 was on
on the dateiiof accident. The complaint came to be filed by
on the-@~iame day at 8.00 p.m. as a counter–blast to the
V petitioner no.1. The police after investigation filed B-
_,.’§2.2.2003. Thereafter, protesting the same on 30.12.05 the
tits’
21″‘ respondent Ramarao filed a protest memo. The learned Magistrate
registered the case and issued summons to petitioners.
It appears in between, respondent no.2 hereirig:had”l«.ii1ed”»…an
application in S.C.No.51/2003 before Sessions”Court.se’ekingto both.
cases together and sought for his discharge.’».__ came
to be dismissed against which Cr1.RP.3i55{}/2()ll(J6_lii1ed ssisi-siiiiis; cssgt
was also dismissed. However, petitioners 2 haveitiled this petition
being aggrieved by order of takingcogni;;an<;e_'ioi"'~offence and issue of
summons.
5. Heard.
6. it ltlllounsel for petitioners, the
statement of it was the respondents who were
aggressors andwho havie ‘tahkenlt law into their hands and tried to
assaujltto.dist.i:irb,.A’the~v.gQurtlproceedings. Nothing has been whispered in
the said’ these petitioners while the proceedings was
goingon. i i i i
~ is advocate and PW2 is witness of the management. in the
V “~,p_rocess “of__ cross-examination, since irrelevant questions were being put
“to him.lwheri it was objected, respondent no.2 misbehaved and instigated
W”
his assistant to assault PW.1, which is abuse of court proceedings. On
the protest application filed by the respondent, the learned Magistrate
without looking to the circumstances and background of ‘the”-inci’d.cnt,
mechanically proceeded to take cognizance of the issued’..proces’siagai’nst_
petitioners. The petitioners have sought for:~;1uias–hingof_.theip_rocveediiigs.i5
7. Per contra, the learned ‘veheriientljy. the
case and counter case has to be T/heldiiiby. court in
Cr1.P.59’78/O6 dated 23.3.2oo9.i’i’agcordeihgiiiiggvigimmitted that there is
no scope for interferenceieith coiginizance and issue of
process against the i V
8. that arises for consideration
is whether taking of issue of process against petitioners
on the protest. application.filed’v.b§f” respondents in C.C.No.16l1/2006
pending_ befoiie II cidu-tt–,« ‘Hubli, needs interference.
9. i’ ,_:i’ili’he Counsel for petitioner taking me through charge
. .is_hee4ti’fi_led andiiipetition filed by respondent as to the incident that has
‘taken’*:i_p3ace”~«in open court and also statement recorded by Presiding
and other witnesses clearly points towards guilt of the
tie”
respondents. It is seen that nothing has been whispered as against the
petitioners by the Presiding Officer ignoring the statement of other
witnesses. The application said to have been filed by the respondent
appears to be a counter–blast. The very statement of Presidiz1gl»:<:<D:i'tiucer of
the Labour Court depicts the fact that the very respondents"have:: abused
the petitioners in filthy language in the open court and spoii–edlW._
the decorum and dignity of the court. the.:l.openw.'c._ourtlfchew
assistant of Ramarao by name JakirfH_ussai'n has thrvovzn the; plastic
chair towards the advocate, viz. Petitione_rl'no.1.2'-'E'he"context is also
explained by the Presiding Ofiicer in s.ta.te"niient given before the
police.
10. Ona_the I3–léeport and the complaint filed
by the respondent’ afterthe Ai.ifil.in’g..¢_ofpetition by the complainant, it was
for the learne.d..Magis’trateito apply: his mind before taking cognizance of
the*icase- inV’vth’e 5»-backpgroundllloi facts and circumstances of the case. In
the circ1imstanc_es,l oncelljagain if petitioners were to face the trial it would
nothing but abuse, process of court.
V. decision reported in AIR 2003 S.C. 2612, the Apex Court
to section 482 Cr.P.C. has ruled that section 482 saves inherent
W
powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the”-ends of
justice. The power can therefore be exercised to quash._lthe’–lc’r.iminal
proceedings.
In the instant case, what is being noticed the hipoli-ceefficer. l1asl”=
filed B–report. The complaint said toshavpe belenllifiied
subsequent to the report filed by as to the
alleged incident. In the circums:tar.cesj,i background
of the case, unless some available at the
inception toindict complaint, taking of
cognizance is nothing person to set the law into
motion. The complaint when an incident
has taken placeunder that he would be implicated by
filing a complaint aslia Unless such a fear is curbed at the
verjiliirieept’ie.n, the “very of maintaining law and order would be
frustrlated._._ counter cornplaints/ protest petitions and
iv.consequent._’4iiling.ofl:–.VE3:Reports itself will not constitute material for the
* ~~M_agistirate to ‘take cognizance. The learned Magistrate should visualise
the «aetual_sit_uation before taking of cognizance and issue of process on
. protest application is filed.
:>
12. The learned Magistrate should have applied his mind to
reject the protest petition filed, by passing a reasoned order,–‘”–._»On the
contrary, he has proceeded to entertain the petition and talgensciognizance
despite petitioners were shown to be innocent of the allegationrsv
the respondent. The very fact that the Presiding«Officer:«ojiiiitlieficoi.1rt=hasf
given statement as to what transpired in the and”
respondents have rnisbehaved with thejipiiipetitiiohnersg._’gfQul*diiiiprima facie
constitute material against the I’€..SV’I:)01’1’d.’e’I’1ViZ.$:.” The material ought to
have been examined to dislodgeiiiithiei the petitioners by
the respondents. Instead he ‘izcoginizance and issued
processwhich is law. This is nothing
but nOn~app1iC&tiG11._§f.i;l’iil*iij unruly elements to take the
law into their hands’ by j.1_ic’.»i,ciiia.1_ process.
13. Irrthe c’irciurns’tances”,: the petition is allowed. Impugned
proizgeeoingsinitiatedby waj/Wolf taking cognizance and issue of process
againsiti._.petitionDer,s”1ri–C.:C.No.1611/2006 on the file of JMFC II Court,
flubli, is qu.asheVd..i E –
Sd/’
EUDGE
i