Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1460 (KAR)

Adiveppaswamy v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-27

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A.Patil, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.15 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1349/2018 on the file of the I-Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., 1st Court, Gadag for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 142, 143, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506(2) R/W 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.15 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-state. 3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is staying along with his wife and two children. On 19.10.2005, at about 2 p.m. the 2nd son of the complainant went outside the house to make a phone call through public telephone booth and as he did not return to the house, the complainant gone in search of him and he saw near the shop that the accused Nos.1 to 6 came in a jeep and started assaulting his son with hands and legs. He saw the accused persons kicking his son with boots. Thereafter, they arrested his son without any reason and took him to the police station in their jeep. When the complainant went to the police station, he was informed that the accused have arrested his son for the reason that he has stolen some golden ornaments. The complainant approached the superintendent of police on 20.10.2005 for kidnapping his son and the accused told the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- for his release. The accused have registered series of cases against the son of the complainant and the complainant has also registered two cases against the accused persons in different jurisdictional courts and in that backdrop the complainant contended that only with an intention to harass the complainant, accused No.1 to 17 colluding with each other have filed a false and baseless cases against the son the complainant and took action. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a private complaint before the I-Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court Gadag and the said Court, after recording the statement of the complainant, took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. Challenging the same, accused No.15 is before this Court. 4. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a private complaint before the I-Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court Gadag and the said Court, after recording the statement of the complainant, took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. Challenging the same, accused No.15 is before this Court. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that if the entire contents of the complaint are perused, it indicates that there is a violation of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The cognizance has been taken after a period of limitation. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner-accused is that, as per Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, no sanction has been obtained prior to filing of the complaint and as such, cognizance taken by the Court below is not sustainable in law. It is further contended that no prima-facie case has been made out. On reading the entire complaint averments, it shows that nowhere in the complaint, the overt acts of the petitioner-accused have been stated. As some cases have been registered against the son of the complainant, the complainant has registered a false case against the police officials. It is further contended that the complainant is in the habit of filing false complaints. It is his further contention that when there is no prima-facie material as against the petitioner-accused, if the Court takes cognizance of the offences, then it amounts to nothing but abuse of process of law and this Court can interfere with the said order. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) AIR SC 3363 and prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings of the Court below. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has vehemently argued and contended that the main allegation made in the complaint is, the petitioner-accused, being superior officer, along with other accused persons conspired and influenced them to take the son of the complainant in custody and to register the case, though the son of the complainant has not been involved in any case. The said act is only because cases have been registered against the petitioner-accused and other accused persons. The said act is only because cases have been registered against the petitioner-accused and other accused persons. It is further contended that the other accused persons, who are police officials, have been tried by the Court, which clearly goes to show that the present case is not a false or concocted case. It is further submitted that there is no abuse of process of law and the accused persons have not acted in discharge of their duty. Though the private complaint was registered in the year 2005 and cognizance was taken only in the year 2018, provision of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., will not come in the way. On these grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and perused the records. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the decision quoted supra by the learned counsel for petitioner-accused. Insofar as the preposition of law laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (stated supra) is concerned, this Court is not having any difference of opinion but the said principle has to be applied depending on the facts and circumstances of case. Said ratio is not applicable to the present case on hand. It is the first contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused that though the complaint is filed in the year 2005, the cognizance has been taken only in the year 2018 and as such there is violation of section 468 of Cr.P.C. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the provision of Section 468 of Cr.P.C., and the said section clarifies that no court shall take cognizance of offence of the category specified in sub-section 2, after the expiry of period of limitation, but however the records show that after filing of the complaint by the complainant on 16.12.2005, the matter was posted for recording statement of the complainant and several adjournments have been given for recording the statement of the complainant and ultimately the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 01.06.2018 and subsequently case was posted for arguments and further arguments, and by order dated 21.07.2018 the case was registered and summons were issued by taking cognizance. 8. 8. It is well settled preposition of law that if any matter is pending before the judicial proceedings, then under such circumstances, the period of limitation which has been consumed in judicial proceedings has to be excluded. Be that as it may. Even as per Article 114 of the Limitation Act, the said period is also protected and in that light the contention taken by the learned counsel for petitioner-accused that cognizance has been taken after the period of limitation does not sustain and the same is liable to be rejected. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused is that no sanction has been obtained as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. I have given my thoughtful consideration to both sections. In both sections, it has been made very clear that no prosecution can be held against any officials including the police officials, if the acts done under colour of duty as mentioned in the said section. But as could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other material, it clearly goes to show that for having registered the case as against the police officials, they have conspired and influenced accused Nos.1 to 6 and kidnapped the son of the complainant and thereafter two cases have been registered against accused persons in this behalf. This act of the accused does not fall under discharge of his official duty. That apart, the fact does not cover either under section 197 of Cr.P.C. or section 170 of Karnataka Police Act. In that light also, the said contention does not sustainable in law. 10. The third contention which has been taken by the petitioner-accused is that the complainant is in the habit of lodging false complaints and even the complaint, if it is entirely read, no overt acts have been alleged against the petitioner-accused and no prima facie case has been made out so as to proceed with the case. 10. The third contention which has been taken by the petitioner-accused is that the complainant is in the habit of lodging false complaints and even the complaint, if it is entirely read, no overt acts have been alleged against the petitioner-accused and no prima facie case has been made out so as to proceed with the case. But as could be seen from Para No.17 of the contents of private complaint, therein it has been specifically averred that it is accused Nos.9 to 17, for having registered cases against them in various courts, they conspired with accused Nos.1 to 8 and with an intention to save themselves from the cases registered against them by the complainant, they registered a false complaint against the son of the complainant, which clearly goes to show that there is a prima-facie material against petitioner-accused. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner-accused conspired with other accused persons only because the cases have been registered by the complainant against the police officials including the petitioner-accused. Even it is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused that in the cases registered by the complainant against the police officials trial has been held and in some cases accused have been acquitted, which clearly goes to show that cases have been registered by the complainant making allegations against police officials and accused have faced the trial. Under such circumstances, at this juncture, it cannot be held that there is no prima-facie case and there is abuse of process of law. Looking from any angle, the petitioner-accused has not made out any grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed, being devoid of merits.