Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 261 (KAR)

L. K. Ramesh v. S. G. Thippeshappa

2014-02-28

P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2014
ORDER 1. This revision petition is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the order dated 26-7-2011 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Davangere, in Criminal R.P. No. 7 of 2011. The brief facts which gave rise to this criminal revision petition are as under: "One S.G. Thippesha filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. against five police officials namely L.K. Ramesh, Shankar Naik, Feroz Khan, Ranganath and Parasuramappa for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 447, 394, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed, referred the same to Dy. S.P., Davangere under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. for investigation and report. It appears that the Dy. S.P. filed 'B' report. The complainant filed a protest petition. Thereby, the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses came to be recorded by the Magistrate and finally by an order dated 31-12-2010, the complaint came to be dismissed by acting under Section 203 of Cr. P.C." 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 7 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Davangere. The learned Sessions Judge upon merits by order dated 26-7-2011 partly allowed the revision petition while setting aside the order of dismissal of the private complaint as against respondent 1-L.K. Ramesh - the Police Sub-Inspector while confirming the order of dismissal of the private complaint against respondents 2 to 5. 3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent 1-the Police Sub-Inspector presently working as C.P. I, at Pandavapura Police Station has filed this revision petition questioning the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the Sessions Judge. 4. Heard the arguments. Perused the records. It is seen that the complainant filed a private complaint stating therein that on 16-1-2004 at about 6.45 p.m. when the complainant was harvesting paddy in his thrashing floor at Kunobelakere Village, accused 1 to 5 came in a jeep and caught hold of the complainant and one Mahanthappa. Accused 2 to 5 caught hold of the complainant and in the meanwhile accused 1 took his shoe into his hand and assaulted the complainant. The complainant's mother who came to his rescue was abused in filthy language. Even she was kicked with shoe by accused 1. Accused 2 to 5 caught hold of the complainant and in the meanwhile accused 1 took his shoe into his hand and assaulted the complainant. The complainant's mother who came to his rescue was abused in filthy language. Even she was kicked with shoe by accused 1. Thus, there is an overt-act on the part of accused 1 which is definitely not within the purview of his official duties. As such, though the complaint was dismissed against all accused 1 to 5 by the Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge after taking note of the overt-act of accused 1 who assaulted the complainant and his mother with a shoe, set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint as against accused 1, the Police Sub-Inspector. The act of assaulting with shoes by the Police Officer definitely do not come within the purview of discharge of his duties as public servant. As such, I do not find any fault committed by the learned Sessions Judge in setting aside the order of dismissal of complaint as against accused 1. The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the material placed on record and on application of mind passed the proper order. I do not find any merits in this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.