Rehamansab vs Maruti

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 though served not represented. Perused the records.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the order of acceptance of ''C'' Report dated 21.08.2012 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur and consequently to quash the order passed by the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur dated 28.12.2012 in Crl. Rev. Ptn. No. 176/2012. On perusal of the records it disclose that the petitioner herein lodged a first information report on 07.04.2011 to Kumarapatnam Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No. 30/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of I.P.C. r/w. Sec. 134(A) & (B) r/w. Sec. 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.

It is averred in the said first information report that the informant on. 06.04.2011 had been to Hospet and he was proceeding on National Highway-4 on Hale Karoor Road when he was at a distance of half kilometer away from Hale Karoor Road then a motorcycle being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from back side and dashed against the petitioner and thereafter without stopping the same the rider drew the said vehicle away from that place. The petitioner sustained injuries to his knee cap and thereafter some persons by name Ajjappa Ningappa Hunasikatti, Siddappa Basavanthappa Angadi, shifted this man to the Hospital. Thereafter, the Police, after due investigation submitted ''C Final Report to the Court. The petitioner also filed objections to the ''C'' Report stating that the said Ajjappa Ningappa Hunasikatti, Siddappa Basavanthappa Angadi, have actually seen the incident and saw the motorcycle Number as KA-27/V-045-being driven by its rider on that particular day and caused the accident.

The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and as well as two witnesses and ultimately the learned Magistrate has passed an order over-ruling the objections filed by the complainant and accepted the ''C'' Report filed by the Investigating Officer. The said order was also subjected to challenge before the Fast Track Judge, Ranebennur in Crl. R.P. No. 176/2012 dated 28.12.2012. The said Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order. Against which the present petition is filed.

The learned Counsel contended that the complainant was in the Hospital when the first information was submitted by him at the earliest point of time on 07.04.2011. The objections to ''C'' Report was filed subsequently after filing of the ''C'' Report, on 17.09.2011 a notice was issued and on 15.11.2011 the complainant filed objections to ''C'' Report with a new story wherein he has stated that on that particular day the motorcycle was driven by one Maruti Kotrappa Chalageri and the motorcycle No. was KA-27/V-6045.

On perusal of the orders of the Trial Court it invariably in detail discussed the ''C'' Report filed by the Police. I have also carefully perused the ''C'' Report filed by the Police. From 07.04.2011 from the date of lodgment of the first information report till the filing of the objection to ''C'' report there is no mention that the petitioner at any point of time from 07.04.2011 to 17.09.2011 approached the Police, informed them that these persons Ajjappa Ningappa Hunasikatti and Siddappa Basavanthappa Angadi were the eye witnesses to incident and he never disclosed that at any point of time later prior to the filing of the objection he came to know from any source that one Maruti Kotrappa Chalageri was riding the said motorcycle and the motorcycle number was KA-27/V-6045. He slept over the matter for all these days when ''C'' Report submitted by the Police while filing the objections to the same these factual matrix have been cropped up and submitted before the Court. Therefore, the Trial Court has properly considered that there was no occasion for the Police to file a false ''C'' Report to the Court. They have done the investigation and in fact sent the Police men for investigation and enquired the matter to find out, which was the vehicle involved on that particular day and who was the owner and rider of the said vehicle, etc. It is also stated in the ''C'' Report that on enquiry thoroughly they came to know that there were no eye witnesses to the incident. The complainant has also not taken these alleged eye witnesses to the Police and having not given any statement before the Police. Only after filing of the objections to ''C'' Report they came before the Court and disclose that they were eye witnesses to the incident after a long lapse of time.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the objections filed to ''C'' Report, only after the filing of the ''C'' Report, the complainant has stated that this Ajjappa Ningappa Hunasikatti and Siddappa Basavanthappa Angadi were the eye witnesses to the incident and also the name of the accused and motorcycle number. Even the first information report at the earliest point of time on 07.04.2011 it is not at all stated that when the incident happened, these two persons were present at that particular point of time, but it is stated those persons came later and shifted the injured to the Hospital. Therefore, the complainant was only person available on that particular day, which can be elucidated from the records. Therefore, the objections filed to the ''C'' Report though contain the name of the accused and motorcycle number it cannot be said that in view of the first information report and the ''C'' report that it is well within the knowledge of either to the complainant or to any person that the said Maruti Kotrappa Chalageri was the person who was riding the vehicle a motorcycle bearing No. KA-27/V-6045 and that Ajjappa Nagappa Hunasikatti and Siddappa Basavanthappa Angadi were the eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, the contents of the objections to ''C'' Report is fully falsifies by the other materials on record.

Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, the continuation of the prosecution case against the said Maruti Kotrappa Chalageri or issuance of any summons to him would become abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and as well as affirmed in the Criminal Revision Petition are proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, this Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.