Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 458 (KAR)

Basavarajendra v. Ravindra

2010-04-01

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2010
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-9-2009 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), MACT-V, Jamakhandi, in CC No.44 of 2009, directing the registration of the case against the petitioner and the issuance of the process to the petitioner and for quashing of the entire proceedings. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent 1 filed a complaint on 22-5-2008. The sum and substance of the complaint is that at 9.45 p.m. on 21-5-2008 the respondent 1 was coming from the house of the Siddu Nyamegouda. On noticing him, the petitioner stopped his vehicles and abused the respondent 1 as ‘rascal’. He threatened that he would annihilate the Congress Party from its base. Further, the petitioner took a lati from the Police Constable and hit the respondent 1 on his right leg. He snatched the gun from the gunman and threatened, showing it at the respondent 1, that he would finish off the respondent1. On hearing the cry of the respondent 1, Sriyuths Siddu Nyamegouda, K.K. Mathad and Bhaskar Badiger came down. The petitioner heaped vulgar words like ‘rascal’ and ‘bastard’ on them and boarded his jeep. The police have filed the ‘B’ report. The respondent 1 filed the protest petition to the ‘B’ report. Thereafter the Trial Court proceeded to record the sworn statement and take the cognizance and issue the process to the petitioner, vide its order dated 26-9-2009. 3. Sri H.S.Chandramouli, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint filed by the first respondent is a counterblast against the Crime No.77 of 2008 registered against 12 persons including the first respondent. He submits that the delay in filing the complaint as explained by the respondent 1 is unacceptable. The first respondent has stated that the delay in filing the complaint is on account of the nightfall on 21-5-2008 and the holding of the elections 22-5-2008. According to Sri Chandramouli-petitioner was arrested at 1’o clock in the intervening night between 21-5-2008 and 22-5-2008. The learned Counsel complains of non-application of mind on the part of the Trial Judge. 4. Sri Shivaraj Mudhol, the learned Counsel for respondent 1 submits that the medical certificates evidencing the receiving of the injuries by the respondent 1 on account of the lati blows inflicted by the petitioner, are not at all considered by the police. The learned Counsel complains of non-application of mind on the part of the Trial Judge. 4. Sri Shivaraj Mudhol, the learned Counsel for respondent 1 submits that the medical certificates evidencing the receiving of the injuries by the respondent 1 on account of the lati blows inflicted by the petitioner, are not at all considered by the police. He further submits that the statement of eye-witness of Sri Siddu Nyamegouda, is not recorded at all. 5. Sri A.R.Patil, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 2 submits that the complaint proceedings cannot be quashed. On the other hand, it is open to the petitioner to seek the discharge from the proceedings in the Trial Court itself. 6. I have minutely gone through the ‘B’ report filed by the police. The ‘B’ report refers to the accused petitioner as “A.C.Sahebaru”(Kannada). While holding the investigation, the police are required to treat all the accused persons as equals. It is not that the complainant being a private party has to be described in the singular form and the Government Officers in the plural form. The 2nd respondent-State Government shall seriously consider issuing the necessary circular in this regard. 7. As far as merits of the case are concerned, this Court finds that the Trial Judge has not passed any order either accepting or rejecting the ‘B’ report. The prosecution is a serious matter, as far as the accused is concerned. There is nothing like implied acceptance or rejection of ‘B’ report. The express decision has to be taken by the Trial Judge after due application of mind. The Trail Judge’s mechanically proceeding to record the sworn statement cannot be upheld. Only on the short ground of there being no decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the ‘B’ report, this petition is allowed in part quashing the order dated 26-9-2009. The Trial Judge is directed to take a decision on the ‘B’ report and based on the outcome thereof proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Needless to observe that all the contentions are left open. 8. This petition is accordingly disposed off. No order as to costs.