Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 663 (KAR)

GOPAL REDDY SHEELUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2014-07-16

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2014
ORDER Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.204/2010 pending on the file of CJM Court, Ramanagara, have come up in three petitions seeking quashing of the same, i.e., Crl.P.No.234/2011 is filed by accused No.2 in the said proceeding, namely Gopal Reddy Sheelum, Crl.P.No.957/2011 is filed by accused No.3, Siva Vallabhaneni and Crl.P.No.4090/2011 is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5, namely Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda and Ragini. The fourth petition in Crl.P.No.4582/2012 is concerned, it is filed by accused No.1, Nithyananda Swamy seeking to set aside the order dated 18.06.2012 passed in C.C.No.204/2010 under Section 53A read with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., wherein he was directed to give his blood sample for test and his voice sample for analysis and also to subject himself for medical examination to assess his sexual potency. 2. The record would reveal that two complaints were filed against the 1st accused, Nithyananda Swamy, one was registered in Crime No.112/2010 by Crime Branch of Egmore, Madras, based on the complaint by one Vishwanathan. Since the jurisdiction within which the accused person was residing being in Karnataka, the complaint was referred to Ramanagara Police, where it was registered in Crime No.142/2010. It is stated that another complaint is filed by one Mr.Lenin and the same is registered in Crime No.141/2010 by Ramanagara Rural Police. The records would disclose that the investigation in to the said complaint was entrusted to COD, on investigation, charge sheet was filed by COD Police. Pursuant to filing of the charge sheet, the proceedings is registered in C.C.No.204/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 read with Section 415, 506(1) and 120B of IPC. 3. In the said proceedings, the grievance of the accused Nos.2 to 5 is that the offences alleged against the accused No.2 is punishable under Section 114, 120B of IPC, in respect of accused No.3, it is punishable under Sections 201, 120B of IPC, in respect of accused No.4, it is again under Sections 114, 120B of IPC and in respect of accused No.5 the offences are punishable under Sections 376, 377, 120B of IPC, for which there are no materials available on record. The statements of charge sheet witnesses does not support the case of the prosecution inspite of that the aforesaid offences are charged against them and they are unnecessarily made to undergo the prosecution in the aforesaid proceedings, which is against their interest and since there are no materials for prosecution, proceedings against them should be quashed. 4. Admittedly the charge sheet is filed by the COD police after thorough investigation in to the alleged complaint. If at all the statements of the charge sheet witnesses and other documents are not supporting the charges framed against accused Nos.1 to 4, they are at liberty to take advantage of the same for seeking their discharge in the aforesaid proceedings. In the instant proceedings, accused Nos.2 to 5 have not even filed an application seeking their discharge from the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case. In such circumstances, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial to consider whether charge sheet is required to be quashed or the accused therein should face the trail. In fact, in catena of decisions, this Court and Apex Court has time and again held that Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be invoked in rarest of rare cases. This Court find that the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for exercise of inherent power of this Court to quash these proceedings at this stage. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the petitions filed by the accused Nos.2 to 5 are premature in nature and the same are required to be dismissed. Accordingly Crl.P.Nos.234/2011, 4090/2011 and 957/2011 are dismissed. While doing so, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file application seeking their discharge provided they have sufficient materials to establish that there are no materials indicating involvement of each of them with reference to the offences alleged against them, which calls for prosecution. 5. In Crl.P.4582/2012 the offence alleged against first accused is an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC among other offences. It is seen that even before the charge sheet is filed, the first accused and others are said to have responded in the media to various allegations made in the complaint, which is said to have been recorded in a compact disc and the said documents are seized for the purpose of investigation. It is seen that even before the charge sheet is filed, the first accused and others are said to have responded in the media to various allegations made in the complaint, which is said to have been recorded in a compact disc and the said documents are seized for the purpose of investigation. It is stated that the voice sample of accused No.1 is necessary to compare with the voice recorded in the compact discs, which are seized. It is also stated that there are several statements by and on behalf of the accused No.1 to the effect that though he was aged about 30 and odd years at the relevant time of the alleged offence, his sexual potency was not in consonance with his age, indicating that he is not capable of performing such acts. When Section 376 of IPC is pressed in to service, it is necessary for the prosecution to gather and produce before the Court enough material to substantiate that he was capable of committing such an offence. In that behalf, if investigation needs subjecting the first accused for voice test, blood test and potency test, the prayer in that behalf appears to be just and proper as rightly observed by the court below. 6. In fact, the order dated 18.6.2012 passed on an application filed under Section 53A r/w 173(8) of Cr.P.C., which is impugned in this petition, appears to be just and proper for the reason that the learned Magistrate has given careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties in the said application based on the rulings relied upon by them and thereafter, rightly come to the conclusion that in the fact situation submitting the petitioner i.e., accused No.1 in CC.No.204/2010 for voice test, blood sample test and potency test is essential. Since the order passed by the learned Magistrate being a considered order and not suffering from any illegality or irregularity, question of quashing the same at this juncture does not arise and the same would amount to stalling further investigation, which is essential to decide the correctness or otherwise of the charges imputed against the petitioner/accused No.1. Accordingly, the Crl.P.4852/2012 is dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Crl.P.4852/2012 is dismissed. 7. In view of the Crl.P.4582/2012 being dismissed, the petitioner/accused No.1 in CC.No.204/2010 is directed to cooperate with the investigation officer to get his blood samples drawn from qualified doctors and also to take his voice samples for the purpose of investigation. He shall also voluntarily appear before the qualified doctors identified by the investigating officer to subject himself to medical test on the day and date fixed by the said qualified doctors to conduct such test on him as the doctors deem fit pursuant to order dated 18.6.2012 passed in CC.No.204/2010. In the event of petitioner failing to comply with the direction of the court in cooperating with the investigating officer, it is open for the investigating officer to take the petitioner in to custody for the limited purpose of taking his blood samples, voice test and subjecting him to medical test and on completion of the same shall release him since he is already enjoying the bail granted in his favour. In the event of petitioner voluntarily subjecting himself for the aforesaid tests, then the question of taking him in to the custody does not arise. Accordingly, all the four petitions are dismissed. 8. While dismissing all the petitions, this Court would find that an application which is filed for impleading by one Smt.Arathi Rao in each of the four criminal petitions also does not merit consideration in these proceedings for the reason that these proceedings are filed to consider quashing of the proceedings as against accused Nos.2 to 5 and quashing of the order passed for further investigation so far as accused No.1 is concerned. Therefore, the presence of impleading applicant is not necessary at this stage. If the applicant so desire, it is open for her to make an application before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.204/2010 by placing all the relevant records to demonstrate how she is necessary party to the proceeding in CC.No.204/2010. In such an event, based on the material to be produced by her, the learned Magistrate may take independent decision whether it is necessary to implead her in the said proceeding. Reserving such liberty to her, the application filed by her in I.A.1/2014 in Crl.P.Nos.4090/2011 and 957/2011 and I.A.2/2014 in Crl.P.Nos.234/2011 and 4582/2011 are dismissed. 9. In such an event, based on the material to be produced by her, the learned Magistrate may take independent decision whether it is necessary to implead her in the said proceeding. Reserving such liberty to her, the application filed by her in I.A.1/2014 in Crl.P.Nos.4090/2011 and 957/2011 and I.A.2/2014 in Crl.P.Nos.234/2011 and 4582/2011 are dismissed. 9. While dismissing the aforesaid criminal petitions and impleading application filed by the alleged complainant seeking permission to come on record, this Court observe that the proceeding in CC.No.204/2010 is sufficiently old. Though the charge sheet is filed in the year 2010 even after four years there is no progress and it is still at the stage of prosecution seeking further investigation in to this matter. Hence, this Court direct the Court of CJM, Ramanagara, to proceed with the matter without further delay. This Court would fix the next date of hearing in CC.No.204/2010 on 28.7.2014 in the presence of counsel appearing for accused 1 to 5 therein. The registry shall communicate a copy of this order to learned CJM, Ramanagar, to take up CC.No.204/2010 for hearing on 28.7.2014.