Sharanappa and Others vs Janhavi S. Biradar and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The present petition is filed seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 340/2012 in taking cognizance and issuing process vide order dated 28.12.2011 and 18.01.2012 respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 166, 182, 195, 211, 342, 447, 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.

The respondent No. 1 Janhavi, filed a private complaint in PCR No. 296/2010 against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 166, 182, 195, 211, 342, 447, 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. On receipt of the said complaint the learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The order sheet of the trial Court discloses that the police have submitted the ''B summary report'' before the Court, which was contested by the complainant after filing the protest petition. The Magistrate has gone through the contents of the ''B summary report'' and also on the original complaint taken cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and thereafter issued summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., which is challenged before this Court.

The complaint averments disclose that the complainant is the resident of Vidyanagar, Hubli and she is one of the party in O.S. No. 269/2005. On 31.12.2009 at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning, when the complainant was in the bathroom in room No. 212 of Panwar Lodge at Gulbarga, it is alleged that all the petitioners rushed to the said lodge by knocking the door of the complainant''s room and dragged her out of the room and threatened that, they will not allow her and her father to visit their lands and threatened her with dire consequences of cutting the hands and killing her etc. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Station Bazar Police Station and lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioners. When accused Nos. 1 and 2 being the public servants and influential persons of the locality have not taken any action in spite of the repeated request by the complainant. On the other hand, the police as a counter blast taken a counter complaint by accused No. 6 against the complainant and registered a false complaint against her. The complainant has thereafter approached the Advocate and went to the police station but instead of obliging the request of the advocate to release the complainant the accused No. 1, holding the collar of the said Advocate and has beaten the Advocate and kicked him with boot legs and addressed him with filthy language and threatened to kill the Advocate and his family members etc. Being aggrieved by the illegal action of the accused No. 1 the Advocate has approached the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, in this regard by alleging that, by the influence of local politicians and by taking bribe, the accused No. 1 has turned hostile and had brutally assaulted on him etc. But the Superintendent of Police colluding with his delinquents with a view to save them, has not taken any action against the said delinquents nor has conducted any enquiry against them. The complainant has also lodged a complaint before the Director General and Inspector General of Police, for taking suitable disciplinary action against the high hands of the police officers etc. Thereafter, as police missionary failed to take action on her complaint. It appears, a private complaint came to be lodged for the above said offences. On perusal of the complaint averments, there is some semblance of materials to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners, which is also supported by sworn statement. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons, at this stage, to quash the cognizance taken up by the Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the petitioners drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 200425/2014, wherein this Court has observed at Paragraph No. 13 that,

"B report submitted by the police cannot be thrown out as useless material, the learned Magistrate has to look into the contents of the ''B'' report in order to weigh the material on record to ascertain whether it is a fit case for taking cognizance and proceeded with, and whether allegations made in the complaint are vague or whether allegations are made due to private vengeance in order to falsely implicate the accused persons into the crime etc. Therefore, the learned Magistrate not only should go through the contents of the complaint but also should go through the contents of the ''B'' summary report though he may or may not rely upon the said ''B'' report, nevertheless, he has to apply his judicious mind before taking cognizance on the original complaint lodged by the complainant."

Therefore, the learned Magistrate should know the contents of the complaint and thereafter pass appropriate order.

The learned counsel contended that in this case the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind as to why the ''B report'' has to be rejected and why the cognizance has to be taken on the complaint lodged by the complainant.

On perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has categorically stated in his order with regard to the referring of the complaint to the police and filing of the ''B report'' and issuance of notice to the complainant. Thereafter, he heard the arguments of the complainant and also the State and perused the ''B final report'' filed by the police and also the complaint averments. Thereafter, only he rejected the ''B final report''. Though he has not mentioned anything about the contents of the ''B final report'' nor he has passed any order, why he has rejected the ''B final report'', nevertheless, he has narrated the circumstances with regard to the hearing of ''B final report'' and also perusing the ''B final report'', complaint averments and thereafter he came to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to take cognizance. After taking cognizance and recording the sworn statement, he has also further narrated once again that, after hearing the arguments on ''B final report'' he has rejected the ''B final report'' considering the protest petition and complaint averments. He has also considered the statement of the complainant, contents of the complainant and sworn statements and ultimately came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to issue process against the accused. It is not that he has to elaborately pass the order as to how he was convinced with regard to the rejection of the ''B final report'' but if it is satisfied to the Court that, on perusal of the ''B final report'' and the complaint averments and the sworn statement, if broadly looked into constitute the offences alleged against the accused persons then the Court cannot find fault with the Magistrate that he has not passed any order with regard to the rejection of the ''B final report''. Nevertheless, the Magistrate has to look into the contents of the complaint as well as ''B final report'' in order to come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to take cognizance. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, the Magistrate has not committed any error in taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused. Therefore, when the contents of the complaint and the sworn statement constitute the offences for issuance of process at the preliminary stages the Court cannot analyze the materials on record in order to quash the proceedings. The truth or falsity of the contents of the complaint has to be thrashed out later. Under the above said circumstances, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial Court for making necessary applications for their discharge, in that event the trial Court is directed to consider their applications and dispose of the applications as early as possible in accordance with law.

With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.