Shankar Gowda Basvanagowder vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner arraigned as sole accused in C.C. No. 477/2013 on the file of the Second Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him. Respondent No. 2 lodged private complaint in P.C.R. No. 290/2008 alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was lodged, after going through the contents of the complaint and being satisfied about the prima facie materials, took cognizance of the offences, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on being satisfied about the existence of sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner, directed registration of criminal case and issuance of summons to the petitioner. On coming to know of this, the petitioner has presented this petition.

Quashing of prosecution is sought principally on the ground that on the report lodged by respondent No. 2, before the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga, making similar allegations against the petitioner, an enquiry was held by the Dy. Sp., Chitradurga and during the said enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded the statement of the second respondent as well as other witnesses and has submitted a report stating that there is no truth in the allegations made therein and in spite of such report, the second respondent has presented private compliant and the learned Magistrate without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts has proceeded to take cognizance of the offences, as such the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons to the petitioner is bad in law.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents produced, I find no justifiable ground to entertain this petition. No doubt, on the basis of the complaint lodged by second respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga, an enquiry was directed to be held by Dy. Sp., who after holding an enquiry submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police stating that there is no truth in the allegations made in the said report. However on that ground, the complaint lodged by the second respondent based on which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance cannot be quashed. The contentions urged here are matters for consideration by the learned Magistrate at the trial of the case. It is also contended that the order taking cognizance is bad in law since no sanction as required u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the petitioner who is a public servant has been produced. Question as to whether the acts alleged in the complaint have been committed in discharge of official duty of the petitioner is again a matter to be considered after recording the evidence. It is well settled that the question as to whether or not sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary will have to be considered from stage to stage during the trial of the case before the trial Court. Therefore on that ground, the prosecution now launched against the petitioner cannot be quashed. The veracity of the allegations made in the complaint is required to be established at the trial and therefore, on the grounds urged in support of this petition, the prosecution launched against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed.