Srikant vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1-State. Perused the records.

This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 165/2013 on the file of J.M.F.C., Dandeli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 504, 506 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C. for brevity).

The brief factual matrix of the case discloses that one Mr. C.S. Chikkamath, Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Haliyal, has lodged a complaint against this petitioner and others for the above said offences stating that on 18.10.2012 petitioner had called him over phone in order to have an enquiry upon him with respect to a complaint lodged against him. In fact the complainant has stated that the said matter has already been discussed and the said accused persons have abused and assaulted him. Therefore, there was no necessity to discuss it again. Inspite of that the petitioner has called complainant and abused him with filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences of killing him. On these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged. The police have investigated the matter, recorded the statements of alleged witnesses and also found sufficient materials to file the charge sheet before Court and accordingly charge sheet has been filed before the Court. At this stage, this Court cannot meticulously deal with the statements of the witnesses and the materials produced along with the charge sheet.

The learned counsel for petitioner has brought two points to my notice that complainant has filed earlier report to police, wherein the name of petitioner herein does not find a place, and therefore, he has withdrawn the report lodged before police and thereafter filed another complaint. It is seen that the first report was filed on 18.10.2012 and second report was filed on 19.10.2012 i.e., on the very next day of filing first report. It appears that on the basis of first complaint no investigation has been conducted by police. On the basis of second F.I.R. the police have investigated the matter. At the most, the first report, if it was there with the police and it amounts to a previous statement before the police and it can be made use of by the petitioner u/s 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, that cannot be a ground for quashing of the entire charge sheet papers.

The second contention taken up by learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is an M.L.C. and sanction to prosecute has not been obtained by police before filing the charge sheet. So far as this aspect is concerned, I do not want to express my opinion and if that ground is available to the petitioner, he can very well urge the same before learned Magistrate and he is also entitled to file necessary application for discharge under the relevant provisions u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. in that event the learned Magistrate has to dispose of the said application after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. With these observations, petition stands dismissed.