VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA v. NAGAWWA — 1978 DIGILAW 63 (KAR)

( 1 ) THE two petitioners Veeranna and Annappa have filed this petition under Sec. 482 of the Crlpc, 1973 (shortly called the 'code') for quashing the order dated 11-2-75 made by the Addl JMFC, Gokak in CC. 350 of 75 directing issue of summons to them for various offences including one under Section 302 IPC. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be sttated ag under: One Nagappa son of the 1st Respt Nagawwa died as a result of an assault on him on 19-7-73. On the first information lodged by the police patil of Benchinamaradi village of Gokak Taluk where the occurrence took place, the police registered a case against 8 accused persons. The 1st respondent filed a private complainlt on 4-10-73 against not only the 8 accused against whom the police have registered a case on the basis of the first information received from the police patil but also againslt these two petitioners. The said complaint was taken on the file of the addl JMFC, Gokak, in CC. 350 of 1975. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate decided to hold an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the code before issuing process to the accused. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant and the cage was posted for arguments. At that stage, the Magistrate was transferred. His successor took up the matter, heard the complainant and then directed that further enquiry may be made by the Superintendent of Police, Belgaum as per his! order dated 3-12-73. Respondent-1 filed a revision petition before this Court against the order of the Magistrate referring the matter to the Superintendent of police, Belgaum for enquiry and report in Crlrp. 665/1973. The revision petition was allowed as per the order of this Court dated 16-12-1974, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in the said order. After the matter was received back, the Magistrate, after hearing the parties, passed the order dt. 11-2-75 directing issue of summons to the pefttioners. The petitioners challenged the order of issue of summons in' separate petitions in Crlp. 50/75 and Crlp. 51/75 in this Court. Both the petitions were allowed and the order directing issue of summons was set aside. After the matter was received back, the Magistrate, after hearing the parties, passed the order dt. 11-2-75 directing issue of summons to the pefttioners. The petitioners challenged the order of issue of summons in' separate petitions in Crlp. 50/75 and Crlp. 51/75 in this Court. Both the petitions were allowed and the order directing issue of summons was set aside. Against the said order of this Court, the 1st respondent filed an appeal before the supreme Court in Crla. 99/76. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme coi r;t as per its judgment dated 23-4-76. By the said judgment the Supreme court has set aside the order of this Court made in Crlps. 50 and 51 of 1975 and restored the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the petitioners. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, the police who had investigated the case against 8 accused persons, placed a charge- sheet before the JMFC, Gokak which has resulted in an order of commitment to the Court of Sessions at belgaum in which it was registered as SC. 30/74-75. While granting the special Leave Petition of the 1st respondent, the Supreme Court stayed the pronouncement of the judgment in the above Sessions Case. While disposing the appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the stay granted in the sessions Case and directed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the case. The i Addl Sessions Judge, Belgaum, disposed of the Sessions Case acquitting all the 8 accused persons as per his judgment dated 7-5-76. Thereupon, the petitioners once again filed Crlp. 581/76 for quashing the order dated 11-2-75 which had gone up to the Supreme Court earlier and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Crla. 99/76. The said criminal petition was dismissed by this Court on 17-1-77. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present petition for the very same relief viz, to quash the order dt. 11-2-75. ( 4 ) SHRI B. K. Ramachandra Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioners presented two arguments before me. His first argument was that there is no prohibition in law to maintain a second petition under Sec. 482 of the code in the same matter for the same relief. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Supdt and remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B. v. Mohan Singh ( (1975) 1 Crllj. 812. ). In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Supdt and remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B. v. Mohan Singh ( (1975) 1 Crllj. 812. ). In that case the main question debated before the Supreme Court was whether the high Court had jurisdiction to make the order dated 7-4-70 quashing the proceedings against respondents-1, 2 and 3 when, on an earlier application made by the 1st respondent, the High Court, by Its order dated 12th Dec, 1968, refused to quash the proceedings. Holding that the High Court was competent to make such an order, the Supreme Court observed thus:" The earlier application which was rejected by the High Court was an application under Sec. 561a of the Crlpc to quash the proceeding and the High Cour/t rejected it on the ground that the evidence was yet to be led and it was not desirable to interfere with the proceeding at that stage. But, thereafter, the criminal case dragged on for a period of about one and half years without any progress at all and it was in these circumstances that respondents-l and 2 were constrained to make a fresh application to the High Court under Section 561a to quash the proceeding. It is difficult to see how m these circumstances it could ever be contended that what, the High Court was being asked to do by making the subsequent application was to review or revise the order made by it on the eralier application. Sec tion 561a preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitied to entertain the subsequent application of respondents-1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constitu ted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The High Court was in the circumstances entitied to entertain the subsequent application of respondents-1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constitu ted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application of respondents-l and 2 were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier application of the first respondent because, despite the rejection of the earlier application of the first respondent, the prosecution had failed to make any progress in the criminal case even though it was filed as far back as 1965, and the criminal case rested where it was for a period of over one and a half years. It was for this reason that, despite the earlier order dated 12th Dec, 1968, the High Court proceeded to consider the subsequent application of respondents-l and 2 for the purpose of deciding whether it should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561a. This the High Court was perfectly entitled to do and we do not see any jurisdictional infirmity in the order of the high Court. " ( 5 ) THE above decision of the Supreme Court lends support to the first argument advanced by Shri B. K. Ramachandra Rao that in law, there is no prohibition for entertaining a second petition under Sec. 482 of the code when an earlier application in the same matter for the same relief had been rejected. ( 6 ) THE second argument of Shri Ramachandra Rao was that in view of the change of circumstances brought about by the acquittal of the remaining 8 accused by the Sessions Judge, Belgaum, interference by this court by exercising its wholesome powers under Sec. 482 of the Code is absolutely necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise secure the ends of justice in quashing the impugned order. ( 7 ) IT seems to me that the petitioner have more than one obstacle in their way to secure the relief sought for. In the first place, the petitioners had once before challenged the very same order dated 11-2-75 issuing process against them before this Court in Crlps. 50 and 51 of 75 and obtained a favourable order. ( 7 ) IT seems to me that the petitioner have more than one obstacle in their way to secure the relief sought for. In the first place, the petitioners had once before challenged the very same order dated 11-2-75 issuing process against them before this Court in Crlps. 50 and 51 of 75 and obtained a favourable order. The said Order was set at naught by the supreme Court in Crla. 99 of 1976 and the order of the Magistrate issuing process to the petitioners was restored with the following observations :" A,t the time of granting the special leave, we had directed the sessions Judge who was trying the criminal case resulting from the fir lodged before the police to stay proceedings to the extent that the judgment was not to be pronounced until his appeal was disposed of. We understand that the Sessions Case is now concluded before the learned Sessions Judge and arguments have also been heard. In view of the order of the Magistrate issuing process against respon dents-1 and 2 which has been confirmed by us, the respondents will have to face a supplementary trial and it is not conducive in the interrests of justice to allow the other trial to he stayed any further. The sessions Judge is therefore, directed to dispose of the Sessions Case and the stay granted by this Court earlier is vacated. " ( 8 ) IT is clear from the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above, that the Supreme Court had in their mind the Sessions Case that was pending trial against the remaining 8 accused and also the stage at which it was pending then, by virtue of the stay granted by it. The stage at which the Sessions Case was pending then was only to pronounce the judgment. In that situation their Lordships of the Supreme Court vacated the stay and directed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the Sessions cage with the observation that the respondents who are the petitioners herein would have to face a supplementary trial in view of the confirmation of the order of the Magistrate issuing process against them and it was ,not conducive in the interests of justice to allow the trial of the Sessions' case to be stayed any further. Thus it is seen from the decision of the supreme Court in Crla. Thus it is seen from the decision of the supreme Court in Crla. 99/1976 that the proceedings against the petitioners herein should proceed according to law irrespective of the decision in the sessions Caste against the remaining accused. ( 9 ) THE second obstacle in the way of the petitioners is that the validity of the order dated 11-2-75 directing issue of process against them has not been affected in any way in view of the acquittal of the other accused by the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The case against them will have to be proceeded according to law without being influenced by the judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting the other accused as the evidence recorded in that case and the judgment of acquittal are not admissible documents in the case against the petitioners. The case against the petitioners will have to be decided on the evidence to be adduced in the case. ( 10 ) IT is well serttled that the evidence recorded in one criminal case cannot be treated as evidence in -another criminal case. (See mutthulal v. State of M. P. (AIR. 1975 SC. 149) and Gavisiddayya v. State of Karnataka ( (1975) 1 Karlj. 193 ). Merely because the other accused have been acquitted by the Sessions Court and the State did not prefer any appeal against the Staid acquittal and the revision petition filed by the first respondent against the acquittal was dismissed at the admission stage by themselves, would not be sufficient to hold that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners and as such issue of process against them and proceeding with 'the case would result in the abuse of the process of the Court. However, it is open to the Sessions judge on the scrutiny of the material produced in this case, if he comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground fr proceeding agamst the petitioners, he can discharge them. At any rate, the proceedings under sec. 432 of the Code is not called for at this stage on the ground that the other accused were acquitted. ( 11 ) THE last hurdle, in my view, in the way of the petitioners is the order of this Court in Crlp. 581 of 1976. At any rate, the proceedings under sec. 432 of the Code is not called for at this stage on the ground that the other accused were acquitted. ( 11 ) THE last hurdle, in my view, in the way of the petitioners is the order of this Court in Crlp. 581 of 1976. That was a petition filed by the very same petitioners for quashing the very same order on the very same grounds which were considered and rejected by this Court on 17-1-77. By the time the said order was made, the order of acquittal of the other accused persons was already made by the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. No new grounds have been urged in the present petition except contending that the dismissal of Crlp. 581/76 was on the basis of wrong and erroneous understanding of the facts of the case subsequent to the judgment f the supreme Court as this Court proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners had already been committed to take trial in the Sessions court and tha't the trial was to take place. ( 12 ) I have perused the order of this Court in Crlp. 581 of 1976. After going through the said order, I am unable to persuade myself to read the order that the order in question was made on the basis that the accused were already committed to take tria] in the Sessions Court. The order in question specifically refers to the prayer made in the petition that it was to set set aside the order dated 11-2-75 passed by the Addl JMFC, Gokak in cc. 350175 and to quash the proceedings. It also refers to the proceedings in Crlps. 50 and 51 of 1975 initiated by the petitioners against the very same order and their disposal by this Court on 16-12-75. It further shows that the matter was taken up to 'the Supreme Court and the order of the magistrate issuing process against the petitioners was maintained by the supreme Court. Having regard to these matters, this Court observed that as a result of the finality of the order parsed by the Magistrate, the petitioners were issued process and they have appeared before the Sessions judge, instead of stating that they appeared before the Magistrate. Having regard to these matters, this Court observed that as a result of the finality of the order parsed by the Magistrate, the petitioners were issued process and they have appeared before the Sessions judge, instead of stating that they appeared before the Magistrate. The further observation in the order that the case of the petitioners would be considered by the Sessions Judge on merits under Sec. 227 and if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against them, the Sessions Judge would discharge them was made in the context of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the other 8 accused persons were already acquitted by the Sessions Judge and not on the belief that the petitioners were already committed to the Court of Sessions. ( 13 ) THE petitioners have not shown that the facts and circumstances now prevailing are different from the facts and circumstances that were prevailing at the 'time of passing the order in Crlp. 581 of 1976 on 17-1-77 so as to enable this Court to exercise its wholesome powers under Sec. 482 of the Code. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Supdt and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, WB's case (1) will not help the petitioners to seek the relief sought for, though they could maintain this petition despite the rejection of their petition in Crlp. 581 of 1976 as the facts of this case are quite different from the facts of the above case. ( 14 ) IN the result for the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .