IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE
Dated this the 1051 day of November, 200:?
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUST}C13AARALIV_4VI§}§G;r§§P;AJ~V.T.
CRIMINAL PETITION N':n.3!12;~6/2aQs.sV'%
BETWEEN
1.
Shri V K SreeniV--asamurth.y;. V
M.sc.,s.L.{1>h.11,)*» '_ I
Retd. Professor and_sAd'uoVV'cate_,V -.
Aged about 64 ye.a.rs,,\ H' ---
S/olats V:AK3fis11f_Vr1a.i.al"1..:Slj1é~t.V'1'_j;z_, s "
R/0.M3£,rut.}E1i_E2xt'enL3ibn,<_V V'
Ma1u;rVV--VV;363"1.30'-{KQIa1jDist. A
E} V
M .A_. ,* LLB r,» _VAdVVoQVa'te, ' -
30years,~ 'V "
s /OZV K Sreefiifi/a1sVéi}T:iurt,hy,
V . 1f/ 0 . MVa3ju'thiV.'-Ex'teI1"sion,
V, . Ma1ur--5b"3. 30 '£K01ar Dist.)
2 'Papanna, B.A., B.Ed.
V *£\ge_d" b0u_t.. 66 years.
-- A (s/'oV;_'1faie Muniswamy)
Rea'd with Section 149 {PC against
the petitioners' _é:nd=_ order for stoppage of further
proceedings. "
This --C"r-iminal Petition coming on for argument
l,_t}x1:is '£'._(l_l1I't passed the following:
ORDER
T present petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC is
the petitioners No.1 to 7, who are respectively
.ll””l;l_ga__ecused Nos.1 to 7_ in PCR No.11/2001 (CC
£
4
No.194/2005] on the file of the learned Principal Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Malur {hereinafter referred to
as ‘Trial Court’ for short}. The petitioners have
for quashing of the order dated 6.7.2005 H
passed in the said case issuing process ag’ain.st= them’ for ”
the offences under Sections 302;’-130:5′
Section 149 of IPC on the of resp:orw1iden.t. No.02
herein. _ ._
2. Stated in brief .lle~a_d.ing_ to the present
petition are as under: ‘
(fig) ._ complainant filed her
1/2001 on the file of the
_ _learned against. the petitioners No.1
herein, ….. alleging that they committed the
under Sections 302, 306 and 506 read
Section 149 of IPC. Learned Magistrate
referredl the said complaint to the police
concerned. The police submitted ‘B’ report.
00 ‘0″u._Lelarned Magistrate, by his order dated 30.712002
0’ accepted the ‘B’ report.
A—-{“‘V’\,…..,___,,,
b) Thereafter. on 14.8.2002, the complainant
filed an application before the Learned Magistiate
seeking recalling of the order dated
passed in the said case accepting
The said application was..all.oWed_l 0′
order dated 30.7.2002 ca.rne;ftoi’ l:5€_Vrec,aIied..po1é.1:
14.8.2002. TheI1,,th_e eerdpiaieenittvp.fried} hisif
objections to the ‘B’ repdrr. Onlsworn
statement of the,—-compplainap_ntcame to’be~recorded.
On 18. 10.2002 «tjaollwitnesses for the
complainant on 4.2.2003,
the lear’neri:.1″J3/Iaéistaratle order directing
the the case and
S01 ibrnit’ iinal ; -~ . V
it The V0 was challenged by the
petitioners} aectised in Cr.RP No.31/2003. The
revision petition was allowed by the Sessions
.C”0ftirt,*~.,_._by order dated 17.1.2004 allowed the
remitted the matter to the Trial
3}’ hereafter, the complainant got examined
folraher two more witnesses. Learned Magistrate, by
A. his impugned order dated 6.7.2008, directed to
Eisstae of process against the petitioners No.1 to 7.
The correctness of this order issuing process is
.»–f”””‘”‘
6
challenged by the accused — petitioners in this
petition. During the pendency of this petition. the
petitioner No.7 died. Therefore. the case against
him has been abated.
3. Sri K Manjunath, the learned coun4s:elVl,:lforl”
petitioners No.1 to 6 strongly~~’csnte:nded’lfthtatv4.:jthe.
learned Magistrate committed sieriotisl error’ in
process against these petitioners for the.ipsaid~-ivlolfences. it
inasmuch as the averrnzentsp..in complaint, the sworn
statements of the complaina’ntl5and_:he’r.jivitnesses do not
Sections 306» read with Section 149 of {PC
and thereforev impiigned order issuing process
against itheselpetitioners for the said offences deserves
»to’~h_e set.pas:i’de and all further proceedings in the said
case.tdese~r_ve’t:o be quashed.
Pg§r:. contra, Sri R Shariff, the learned counsel for
xthel2;””i respondent complainant strongly contended that
the averments in the complaint and also the sworn
<–«….(~""'_""'"
statements of complainant, and her witnesses viz. (_3__Ws.2
to 7 prima facie establish that the petitioners m.«
committed the said offences and therefore tl*;’e*– ”
order does not call for any int.erfere’nce in thi4’s”;V:e”¥iiti0i1.
5. Learned counsel for tI1e__petiti,oriers 1″:’asvAp4rodii1ced
the foilowing decisions in his”eor1tfentions:
(a) 1977 soC.t_”i:{cr;j ,1,3’2~:._;»./rorfsharda Prasad
Sinha vs. State o’i’~-_?i¥iIf1ar_). -. »
{b} ILR C; -_- r1998 1.’ M or 2296: , (M/s.Shre1
in-tergrational Financve Ltd. Vs. Mr.M G
i’Narayar1%.1), ” ”
(C) T’ P Bobati and others
._ -vs; M’ahac1ev_TVVirupaxappa Latti)
{d)’ ‘*–__iLR i’9is’9.’i:.§§~_,r.iis35: (smwiemaiatha Ramesh
‘vs._ ‘Sri Vii N Muddu Krishna)
” (e-3’. «LLR i’99’s”Kar. 3599: [Pepsi Foods Ltd. And
wa_r1r,_ Vs. Special Judicial magistrate and ors.)
Ax”hr.’Leariiecizhytteounsel for the 21″? respondent has
‘V protuitueesl the following decisions in support of his
A ..fl.eor’1i:entions as under:
H 1. ILR 2003 Kart}: (Anthony D’Souza and
others vs. State of Kamataka)
(–…..£””””-**–
9
petitioners, forming themselves into unlawful
assembly. forcibly administered poisori to the
deceased. Immediately thereafter the deceased
was taken to Venkateshwara Nursing Home at
Malur. but he died as a result of poisoning.
(1)) Then the petitioners carnef’-to’….l_l’the».
Complainant and told that they all K V’
her son by administering poison that.’
time. the petitioners — :’acCi’1sAeVd 0’tthreateiik,the:
Corriplainant that if she-werelltodlile
as to the death of herll”sori, the’_lyrV.wo’ulid not leave
her life.
8. got herself examined as
CW1. «stated’.fii1_:l1«e_ri”-eizidence that on 6.12.2000 at
about oiiefsriiiiivas, the son of her elder sister,
t:O”‘.l1€*Yx and informed that the deceased Manjuriath
.__’v(/asl Verikateshwara Hospital at Malur as he
had4_Consu_fi;eld poison. Immediately on coming to know
the same, she went to the said hospital and saw her
son Manjunath in the said hospital. She has
it ..,_fdrther stated in her statement that when she enquired
.»~r’-~
with him, he told her t.h3.t. since he was beaten by the
accused alleging that he committed theft of ~
in the school, he consumed poison. This .s’tatenient
CW1 complainant is quite cont1*ar*y’Ato–‘_ hef”taivefm.enfs
made in the eompiaint. that ‘
and told her that they hadiifoteiblyAnétdminijstewfeelt’poison’V’ V
to the deceased. This;–})zei11g’..so,».theu ‘eomp1’e1i1’1-an’t has not
made out against the p’e:mon;:rs for the offence
under Section i
9. CW2 his sworn statement
that xiafhen theT’d._ece’ased in the hospital, the
deceaseclwais not i.nA’a»– ]5C§sSl;?ZiOI1 to speak, but he came to
that thiewievcessed had consumed poison. CW3
.ASrin_ivasuhas”~stated in his sworn statement that one H
“i\72A1vAi’.ay2iVnz;ipp21’T;;.”etnd Shashi informed him that the
–V deceuaseid hhtianjunath had consumed poison in the
of Vivekananda High School in Malur Village
‘ therefore he Went to the said school and took the
$
H
deceased with the help of his friend Shabbeer and got
him admitted at Venkateshwara Nursing Home at Malur
village and thereafter he informed the same…to44_:’ithe
complainant.
10. CW5 Smtsaroja has stated her sWo1°n::stateme13,t ”
that on the date of incident,whii’e she
the Vivekananda schoo1,”0_she heard. No.1» 0′
abusing the deceased in thevV:A”c_o’m_Vpotin’d.of said
school saying that \4.’t3::’>’inii1itted theft of
Rs.20,000/M and the ide’c’easede«.ife_pi_tfinft:f’that he did not
commit any0vVtiii3fti_:f’ further deposed that she
also heard’ acctise’d:’J.\.¥oI’*.isaying the deceased that he
should tconsii’m_eA poison and, thereafter, she came to
deceased was admitted in the
‘V¢fi§iatesh’wara’V Hospital as he had consurned poison.
11. Anjanappa has stated in his sworn
0′ iijfstatement that at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.rn. on that date,
‘ saw the deceased in the said hospitai and at that
fl,……{“‘\~””‘\4″‘\a-v
12
time. the deceased was not in a position to speak. He
has further stated therein that at that time A1
Srinivasamurthy and A2 Shaiiesh Kumar came to-..>the
hospital and when he enquired with
informed that the deceased had K it
Rs.20,000/~ in the school and
the deceased that they would file’ieoinpiaint-“Ia§Vainst’:
deceased in respect of theu”i’s.a’id theft.,. consumed
poison. _ V V _ VA
12. CW7 Venkateshappdag in his sworn
staterrient ‘1–.2.–()0 or 1.00 pm. on the said
date, white he Vwasyxnearby the said schooi, he
heard ‘cry frofr1– pteniises of the school. and he also
_ deceased Manjunath saying
He has further deposed
–V that heard the accused No.1 questioning the
dxgdeceased Manjunath as to where he had kept the money
— that on seeing him (CW7) through the window, the
‘¢”‘*”-=—–Iv’~”\'”‘-.
“\
£3
said accused asked him to go away and therefore he left
the said place. He has further stated that by about 5.00
or 6.00 p.m., he came to know that the deceased was
admitted in Venkateshwara Hospital as heetlligid
consumed poison and the deceased died
day.
13. It is crystal clear that 3;-.l§o’*;}e .
CWs.2 to 7, the Ae’2:aIninVe;:;1 the
complainant. do riot,.disc1o-s–e…”Lthat_ thell”pet.i.tioners –
accused forcibly adminishteredlfllpoiso:f;.uto–Vthe deceased.
The _ downot disclose that they
threaten; uthe “Smt.Radhabai either on the
said;date olf’lincide1”:tl’orvat. any time thereafter that they
lldxvonrild Elrtilljvlllaer if were to lodge complaint against
*the1_n11e.’:i*evspect”of the death of her deceased son. Even
if itvis acceidted that the accused threaten the deceased
their would file complaint. against him for the
e~__l”all1eged theft of Rs.20.000/~ from the school and
“therefore he consumed poison and died consequently,
u*¢1
pf A lithe E”i’L::”)etitiAone1’s 1 to ES
_ 14
that itself could not be sufficient to hold that the
accused abetted the commission of suicide by the
deceased.
14. It is the settled principle that the .
exercise of its inherent power LEI_1_dfiI_’_ Sec_:tion’ K”
may quash a criminal proceedingif ‘iallegationis
in the complaint petition swor:1_Vstate:m’ents of
the Complainant and, his witr1e’sse’s._ read’ ‘together and
taken at their face Val1,te :disc}o_s.ei commission of a
cognizable offeriltie, ‘”;L”herei’.o;’e;”~./i’-am “F3-iflv the considered
View that thei.5*av_erirnents_’inthe complainant and sworn
statements’ of c’o;_ripiair1ant and her witnesses
respectiyelgriaws”CW5.ll” to 7 do not make ougagainst any
any of the
under Sections 302, 306 and 506
reati Wi.th Election 1459 of IPC. This being so, I am of the
.3″furtheropinion that the learned Magistrate committed
_ “S-.er”ioi,1s error in issuing process against petitioners No.1
‘ “to 6 for all the said offences.
..4–“‘€
I5
15. Learned Advocates for both the sides have
produced quite a number of decisions as listed supra in
support of their respective contentions. I haveiipéone
through all the said decisions. Suffice it
having regard to the facts and circums,ta.,n’c.es’fof_ the
case, as found from the avermenzts inthe’cornp1air1t__and.’
the sworn statements of -the v”c.or”nplai:1it.’ her
Witnesses, as observed supragi .need.”no_t discuss in
length each of the said u
For the reasonsfAaforesaicigfthe present petition is
hereb3:r,V_allovred.”=._fI’h»e”-.irnpugr1ed order dated 6.7.2005
passed by 4i\/Iagisiirate issuing process
agafigsvt i’~petitiVo11.e:rs No.1 to 8 herein for the offences
»1ipr1d¢1-.sei;ts§&~;.s 302, 306 and 506 read with Section 149
‘.OffIPC quashed. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
IUDGE