Obla Reddy vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Padmanabhiah, J.—Notice to be issued to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent No. 1-State. Perused the records.

The records reveal that the police have submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of IPC. It is alleged that one Smt. Hanumakka and others have filed a case in O.S. No. 8311/2006 against one Rajashekar Reddy and others. The plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the petitioners herein and they have produced two genealogical trees before the Civil Court and out of them, one of the Genealogical Tree in the name of Nanjappa @ Ayyappa (Pavathi)) was drafted and prepared by Sri. J. Hariprasad (CW. 4) and Venkatesh Reddy (CW. 2) has signed the said document. In respect of another Genealogical Tree issued, CW. 4 and CW. 2 states that, that has not been issued by them and the same is concocted by the plaintiffs for the purpose of claiming false claim by the defendants. In this regard, the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet. The charge sheet also contained the report of an expert, which shows that both the Genealogical Trees have been issued by the same competent authority.

The learned counsel has strenuously contended that except the particular allegation about the Genealogical tree, nothing is there to indicate any offence being committed under Sections 420 or 120(B) of IPC by the accused persons. Further, learned counsel submitted that he made an application before the court for discharging the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. and the trial Court even without whispering anything about the contents of the charge sheet and the allegations made and without finding-out whether the allegations attract either Section 120(B) or 420 of IPC, by considering the report of the expert and also statement of the witnesses, in a very cryptic manner, dismissed the said application, and therefore, he approached this court for quashing of the entire proceedings.

I have carefully perused the order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 19279/2010. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court has passed a very cryptic order. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

"Perused the documents and other prosecution papers and statement of the witnesses and further statement of the complainant. It reveals that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case against the accused and there is no ground to discharge the accused. If at all the accused has committed the offences or not that will be considered on merits of the case. Accordingly, the discharge application filed by the accused under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. is hereby rejected."

Usually, the orders of the court should not be mechanical in nature; the order should depict application of judicious mind; perusal of the entire materials on record and after assessing the materials on record or weighing the materials on record for a limited purpose, the court has to pass appropriate orders, which goes without saying that unnecessarily putting the accused persons on trial amounts to violation of their valuable rights and right of liberty as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The trial Court though stated that it has perused the prosecution papers, it never stated what are the grounds urged by the accused for his discharge and how the court has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials or grounds to proceed against the accused. In this context, it is just and necessary to look into the provision under Section 239 of Cr. P.C., which gives vast power to the courts.

Section 239 of Cr. P.C. reads as under:-

When accused shall be discharged.- If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."

Perusal of the above said provision reveals that it empowers the court look into the documents and report produced by the police and on examination of those materials, if the Magistrate feels it necessary give an opportunity to the accused to explain those documents and if those documents are not sufficient to proceed against the accused in order to frame charges or to proceed against the accused or if the Magistrate feels that the charge against the accused is groundless, then certainly he has to discharge the accused by recording the reasons. The power of the Magistrate under Section 239 should not be exercised in idle manner or in a mechanical manner so as to over-come the judicial work entrusted to the court under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. Each and every stage is an important stage so far as accused and complainant are concerned. The court, on meticulous examination of the materials on record and considering the provisions under which the accused persons have been charge sheeted, should see whether the allegations made in its entirety are under any of the provisions of law and whether there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, then only the court has to frame charges and otherwise, the accused persons are entitled to be discharged. But, such an exercise appears to have not been done by the learned Magistrate. He simply stated that he has gone through the materials on record and found that there are sufficient materials, which order in my opinion is without reasons and it is a cryptic one, as submitted by the learned counsel. Therefore, the said order deserves to be quashed and it is inevitable for this to direct the trial Court to restore the application under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. and to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the materials on record and to give an opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor to make his submissions. The court has to bear-in-mind the contents of Section 239 of Cr. P.C. and also principles under which the court can exercise powers and then pass appropriate and suitable orders in accordance with law. Therefore, even if the court has already framed charges, the court has to restore the application under section 239 Cr. P.C. and to pass orders in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.