Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 955 (KAR)

K. G. Krishna v. State of Karnataka

2014-10-31

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
Order K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 9020/2012 pending on the file of the I Additional C.M.M., Bangalore against the petitioner. 2. The records disclose that a person by name Sri. Rajesh S.C. - the 2nd respondent herein had lodged a first information report before the Police Inspector, Banashankari, Bangalore on 28.9.2011 narrating that there was some financial transaction between himself and the petitioner herein. In this context it is specifically alleged that on 28.9.2011 when he went near the house of one Sri. K.G. Krishna, # 1680, 5th Cross, 10th Main, Banashankari, 2nd Stage, Bangalore City, in order to request the petitioner to pay back the money, then it is alleged that the petitioner has threatened him with dire consequences by saying that he was not due of any amount. Not only that he also took out a gun and also threatened the 2nd respondent with dire consequences of killing him and he also threatened him if he once again go to him and ask money, he would take away the life of respondent No. 2. 3. On these allegations, the police have registered a case under Sections 341, 504,506(B) of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the matter and submitted a charge-sheet before the Court. The charge-sheet discloses that there are several eye witnesses to the incident stating that such incident had happened. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before this Court that with regard to that money transaction and the cheating committed by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner has also lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police on 7.10.2011 making certain allegations against respondent No. 2 herein and requested the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action in this regard. But till today, none of the police officials have taken any action so far as the said complaint is concerned. He further contends that even considering the entire material on record, no case is made out against the petitioner. But till today, none of the police officials have taken any action so far as the said complaint is concerned. He further contends that even considering the entire material on record, no case is made out against the petitioner. He also drawn my attention that the place of incident does not come within the jurisdiction of Banashankari Police Station but it falls within the jurisdiction of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, in spite of that, Banashankari Police Station has registered a case and within a short span of life, the same has been transferred to C.C.B., Police and they have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet, who have got jurisdiction over the entire city. 5. The above said grounds, in my opinion, cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage, to over throw the entire charge-sheet because of the reason the charge-sheet paper contains certain statements of the witnesses, mahazar, etc. At this threshold stage, the Court cannot come to the conclusion by means of using extraneous material that the allegations made in the complaint or first information report and the charge-sheet are false. Truth or falsity in the allegations made in the complaint cannot be at the threshold investigated by this Court and quash the entire proceedings. That is the domain of the trial Court to weigh the material on record for limited purpose to ascertain -whether they are sufficient to put the accused persons on trial. Therefore, it is just and necessary to direct the parties to approach the trial Court by making necessary application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such an event, the trial Court has to dispose of the said application after hearing both sides within 2 months from the date of filing of the application. 6. The trial Court should not be persuaded by any observations made by this Court in the body of this order. 7. Having directed the petitioners to approach the trial Court, this Court expresses its anxiousness as to the non taking of the action so far as the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein before the Commissioner of Police on 7.10.2011 with proper acknowledgment. A copy of the said complaint is filed by the learned Counsel before this Court along with a memo. A copy of the said complaint is filed by the learned Counsel before this Court along with a memo. The said document discloses that there are some allegations made against the 2nd respondent herein but the Police Commissioner having received the said complaint and acknowledged the same, it appears, no action has been taken in this regard. 8. It is the fundamental duty of a Police Officer wherever any FIR the complaint is lodged before the jurisdictional police or before the higher officials, to see that the said first information report reaches its logical end. If the Police Officials are of the opinion that no case is made so far as that report is concerned, they will have to issue such an endorsement or intimation to the concerned. If the complaint lodged by a person discloses any cognizable offence that should be registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a competent jurisdictional police and they have to investigate and submit an appropriate report before the Court. Merely because the petitioner has not filed the complaint before the jurisdictional police, in my opinion, does not absolve the Commissioner of Police to refer the said complaint to the jurisdictional Police to take appropriate action in this regard, but for the reasons best known to the Commissioner of Police or to the other Police Official, who are bestowed with such responsibilities no action has been taken in this regard. Therefore, this Court directs the Commissioner of Police concerned to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 7.10.2011 lodged by the petitioner herein and report to this Court as to what action has been taken, so far as that aspect is concerned, he is directed to file an affidavit before this Court within 15 days from today as to why such delay has been caused in referring this complaint to the jurisdictional police for taking an appropriate action. Put up this case for compliance on 17.11.2014. Except for compliance as noted, for all other practical purposes, this case is disposed off. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police immediately and also to the learned High Court Government Pleader, for swift action.