Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 344 (KAR)

Gangavani v. State of Karnataka

2014-03-11

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2014
ORDER : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. Accused No. 5 in PCR. No. 180/2007 on the file of I ACMM, Bangalore, has come up in this proceeding seeking quashing of criminal case in C.C. No. 14228/2008, which is registered against accused Nos. 5 to 7 only in PCR. No. 180/2007. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that, petitioner herein is a devotee of Udupi Pejavar Mata. So also the second respondent herein, who is complainant, in PCR. No. 180/2007. The private complaint in PCR. No. 180/2007 is filed by the second respondent, Sri K.S. Venkatesh. According to him, petitioners herein and himself are very close to Swamiji of Udupi Pejavar Mata. Complainant's nephew Sri Srinidhi was in need of funds for starting a business. Hence, complainant approached first accused in PCR. No. 180/2007, namely Swamiji of Udupi Pejavar Mata to provide certain funds to Sri Srinidhi, so that by making use of the same he could raise loan from the Vijaya Bank to start an industry along with his friends. It is seen that pursuant to the request of complainant K.S. Venkatesh, the funds were provided by first accused-Swamiji to Sri Srinidhi under peculiar circumstances in the presence of witnesses in PCR. No. 180/2007. However, it is stated that the complainant's nephew, Sri Srinidhi vanished with the money that was provided to him and did not come back. As a result, first accused-Swamiji called upon the complainant-Sri K.S. Venkatesh, at whose instance the money was given by first accused-Swamiji, to arrange for repayment of said money. It is stated that when pressure was built on the complainant for repayment of money either through his nephew or by himself as guarantor to the transaction, the complaint in PCR. No. 180/2007 is filed by him against accused 1 to 7 alleging that collectively they are trying to commit certain offences against the complainant, which are punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, namely under Sections 307, 326, 340, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The said private complaint, which was filed on the file of I ACMM, Bangalore, was referred for investigation to the Kempegowda Nagara Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that said Kempegowda Nagara police, after investigation, filed 'B' report in the matter on 18.8.2007. The said private complaint, which was filed on the file of I ACMM, Bangalore, was referred for investigation to the Kempegowda Nagara Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that said Kempegowda Nagara police, after investigation, filed 'B' report in the matter on 18.8.2007. At this juncture, it is necessary to bring on record the relevant dates on which the chronicle events took place leading up to filing of B report by police. 3. Admittedly, the offence alleged against accused 1 to 7 in PCR. 180/2007 is said to have taken place on 24th and 25th of November 2006, whereas a complaint is said to have filed by complainant before the jurisdictional police on 13.12.2006. It is the case of complainant that no action is taken as against said complaint that is filed by him on 13.12.2006. Hence, PCR. 180/2007 is filed on 3.1.2007, which is subsequently referred to Kempegowda Nagara Police, who in turn after investigation filed 'B' report on 18.8.2007, for which it is seen that, a protest petition is filed by complainant on 24.9.2007. After hearing the parties i.e., complainant and accused 1 to 7, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to accept the 'B' report in part, consequently, dismissed the complaint as against accused 1 to 4 and has taken cognizance of alleged offence against accused 5 to 7 and registered criminal case in C.C. 14228/2008 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 340, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No. 5 in aforesaid criminal proceeding has come up in this petition seeking quashing of entire proceeding on the ground that, there is error on the part of learned Magistrate in taking cognizance only as against accused 5 and others when admittedly, main allegation of committing offences is against accused No. 1 and so far as other accused are concerned, they are referred to as perpetrators of offences along with first accused. When matter stood thus, complainant Sri K.S. Venkatesh has pursued the order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting complaint so far as accused 1 to 4 by filing a criminal revision petition in Crl. R.P. No. 246/2008 on the file of Sessions Court, Bangalore, wherein the finding of learned Magistrate is upheld by the appellate Court, accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant came to be dismissed on 11.7.2011. R.P. No. 246/2008 on the file of Sessions Court, Bangalore, wherein the finding of learned Magistrate is upheld by the appellate Court, accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant came to be dismissed on 11.7.2011. Thereafter, no further proceedings are initiated by complainant, Sri K.S. Venkatesh and matter has reached finality so far as accused 1 to 4 in PCR. 180/2007 are concerned. 5. Now coming to the instant criminal petition, what is required to be seen is, whether the learned Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance of offence so far as accused 5 to 7 are concerned, when offences alleged as against first accused is rejected accepting the 'B' report filed by Kempegowda Nagara Police? 6. Now before considering the point for consideration, the 'B' report, which is filed by Kempegowda Nagara Police is looked in to, it is seen that said police have made a thorough enquiry against the conduct of complainant and the alleged incident with reference to accused 1 to 7 in PCR. 180/2007. The entire reading of 'B' report would indicate that the complainant himself is the culprit, inasmuch as, he and his sister Rukmini Devi and her son Srinidhi, who is focal point of the entire litigation, are in the habit of hoodwinking the gullible persons by inducing them to part with their money and when the victims seek for recovery of money, complainant and his family would foist false complaints against victims alleging that there is likelihood of threat to them by the creditors. In the 'B' report, there are at least half a dozen complaints having been registered against complainant-Sri K.S. Venkatesh as well as his sister and nephew-Srinidhi is referred. In the investigation, it has also come on record that, they have cheated the general public to the tune of Rs. 1.6 crores in several transactions and with reference to that, they have also filed several false complaints. 7. On going through the 'B' report, it is clear that there is neither exaggeration nor false statements made by police pursuant to the investigation, which they have conducted against the complainant Sri K.S. Venkatesh and his sister-Rukmini Devi as well as his nephew-Srinidhi. 7. On going through the 'B' report, it is clear that there is neither exaggeration nor false statements made by police pursuant to the investigation, which they have conducted against the complainant Sri K.S. Venkatesh and his sister-Rukmini Devi as well as his nephew-Srinidhi. However, when said report is filed before the learned Magistrate, it is surprising, how he could accept that, with reference to accused 1 to 4 only and disbelieve that report so far as accused 5 to 7 are concerned and it is something, which does not stand to reason in view of the very fact that 'B' report, which is accepted by the learned Magistrate as against accused 1 to 4, is accepted by the Sessions Court in Crl. R.P. No. 246/2008. On going through the entire material available on record it is seen that, there is no indication with reference to the involvement of accused 5 to 7 in any manner in perpetrating the alleged offences, which are alleged against accused No. 1 and stated that other accused also have joined along with him, which is not at all accepted by the police after investigation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that, taking cognizance insofar as accused 5 to 7 is erroneous, consequently, based on that registering C.C. No. 14228/2008 as against accused 5 to 7 is also nothing but the abuse of process of law. 8. Further, the learned Magistrate has failed to analyse the consequence of events i.e., when admittedly the alleged incident is having taken place on 24.11.2006 and 25.11.2006, the complaint is said to have filed by complainant before the jurisdictional police on 13.12.2006. In the meanwhile, the material available on record would indicate that he tried to misuse the media in conducting a mini trial against accused 1 to 7 even before approaching the court of justice for any relief against alleged offences committed against him. The PCR, which is filed by him is on 3.1.2007 i.e., one year two months after the alleged incident. There is nothing on record to show that why he took so much of time to file PCR and what steps he had taken to pursue the alleged police complaint lodged, which is said to have filed by him on 13.12.2006. The Kempegowda Nagara Police have taken all these aspects in to consideration while filing the 'B' report. There is nothing on record to show that why he took so much of time to file PCR and what steps he had taken to pursue the alleged police complaint lodged, which is said to have filed by him on 13.12.2006. The Kempegowda Nagara Police have taken all these aspects in to consideration while filing the 'B' report. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate has turned a blind eye to these details and has mechanically proceeded to accept the 'B' report as against accused 1 to 4 excluding accused 5 to 7 even when there is no reference to their alleged involvement in respect of crime alleged by complainant. The learned Magistrate has also not bothered to see whether any independent witness is produced and examined in support of the case of complainant. So also in so far as the alleged offences under Sections 307, 326 and 340 no medical evidence is produced to demonstrate that complainant has suffered injuries with reference to alleged offences. Nothing is forthcoming from the records in these aspects. The entire compliant is so bald, frivolous and false. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrate had neither time nor patience to go through the same before wrongfully taking cognizance against accused 5 to 7 and registering criminal complaint against them in C.C. No. 14228/2008. 9. On re-appreciation of material on record, this court find that there is the case where the entire material available on record would indicate that the real culprit is complainant-Sri K.S. Venkatesh and his family members, which is fortified by 'B' report filed by Kempegowda Nagara police. When said material is available on record to indicate the criminal intent of complainant-Sri. K.S. Venatesh, it is surprising that the learned Magistrate has partially accepted the 'B' report and has unnecessarily subjected accused 5 to 7 in PCR. 180/2007 to undergo a frivolous prosecution launched against them by the complainant. On going through the entire material available on record it is clearly seen that there is absolutely no merit in the proceeding, which is initiated in C.C. 14228/2008 not only against the petitioner herein, accused No. 5 in the criminal proceeding but also against the other two accused. In that view of the matter, the entire proceeding is required to be quashed. In that view of the matter, the entire proceeding is required to be quashed. While doing so, it is observed that the entire proceeding is initiated at the instance of complainant, who himself is the perpetrator of the crime. Liberty is reserved to accused No. 1 to 7 in PCR No. 180/2007 to proceed against complainant-K.S. Venkatesh for filing false complainant, for defamation and also for damages. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this criminal petition is allowed. The order dated 24.5.2008 in PCR. No. 180/2007 is set aside. All further proceedings in C.C. No. 14228/2008 pending on the file of I ACMM, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 340, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and the other proceeding, if any, pursuant thereto are quashed.