IMPORTANT POINT
When cognizance is not taken for offence under one section out of many in the charge sheet, it cannot be done during pendency of criminal application before High Court, more so in absence of any material.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 53-A read with Section 173(8) – High Court directing A1 to submit for medical examination – Challenged on ground of having been examined medically earlier – They can raise their grievance at the trial – But High Court direction has to be obeyed – Accused must submit to medical examination – Plea rejected. (Para 12)
       (b) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 190 – Investigating agency submitting charge sheet under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 212, 201, 417 r/w. Section 415, 506(1) and 120-B, IPC – Cognizance taken all accused – However cognizance not taken against A2 u/s 212 IPC – Prosecuting agency approaching CJM during pendency of A2’s criminal petition in the High Court to take cognizance u/s 212 – Prosecuting agency asserting oversight on behalf of CJM – CJM taking cognizance u/s 212 against A2 by a cryptic order accepting oversight and without giving any reason – Distressing – Moreover, no material to support charge u/s 212 against A2 – Proceeding qua section 212 quashed. (Para 15, 16, 17)
       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190 – Prayer for quashing of criminal proceeding against accused A3, A4 and A5 – Held, proceedings cannot be quashed. (Para 20)
       Criminal trial – Impleadment – Application for impleadment by one Ranjitha Menon, stating that she is being wrongly projected as a victim – No need to expand scope of present proceeding – application rejected – Liberty given to take steps as advised in the trial court. (Para 21)
       (d) Criminal trial – Proceedings – Complaint registered in 2010 – Charge-sheet filed in the year 2010 – No progress thereafter – Court expressing extreme displeasure. (Para 22)
       (1982) 2 SCC 463 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       One Nithya Dharmananda @ Lenin filed F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Sections 295-A, 376, 377, 420, 506(1) r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Nithyananda Swamy @ Tiru Rajashekaran (“A1”), Gopal Reddy Sheelum @ Nithya Bhaktananda (“A2”), Siva Vallabhaneni @ Nithya Sachitananda (“A3”), Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda (“A4”), Ragini @ Ma Nithya Sachitananda w/o. Siva Sachidananda (“A5”) and others. As the incident had occurred in Karnataka, the case was transferred to Karnataka for investigation. On 26/11/2010, Final Report in C.C. No.204 of 2010 was filed under Sections 376, 377, 420, 417, 201, 114, r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120-B of the IPC. On 4/12/2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara District took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners.
       Four criminal petitions were filed in the High Court of Karnataka by the petitioners.
       All the above petitions were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court by the impugned order.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no merit in these appeals.

ORDER

1. One Nithya Dharmananda @ Lenin filed F.I.R. No.112 of 2010 on 4/3/2010 at P.S. Central Crime Branch, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Sections 295-A, 376, 377, 420, 506(1) r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”) against Nithyananda Swamy @ Tiru Rajashekaran (“A1”), Gopal Reddy Sheelum @ Nithya Bhaktananda (“A2”), Siva Vallabhaneni @ Nithya Sachitananda (“A3”), Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda (“A4”), Ragini @ Ma Nithya Sachitananda w/o. Siva Sachidananda (“A5”) and others. As the incident had occurred in Karnataka, the case was transferred to Karnataka for investigation. On 26/11/2010, Final Report in C.C. No.204 of 2010 was filed by Bidai Police under Sections 376, 377, 420, 417, 201, 114, r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120-B of the IPC. On 4/12/2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara District took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners.

2. Four criminal petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Karnataka by the petitioners. Criminal Petition No.957 of 2011 was filed by A3 praying that order dated 4/12/2010 passed in C.C. No.204 of 2010 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120-B of the IPC be set aside and further proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed. Criminal Petition No.4582 of 2012 was filed by A1 for setting aside order dated 18/6/2012 passed in C.C. No.204 of 2010 on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 53-A r/w. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”) directing A1 to give his blood for test, his voice sample for analysis and subject himself to medical examination. Criminal Petition No.4090 of 2011 was filed by A4 and A5 and Criminal Petition No.234 of 2011 was filed by A2 praying for quashing the charge-sheet filed in C.C. No.204 of 2010 and for setting aside order dated 4/12/2010 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376, 377, 420, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 419, 506(1) and 120-B of the IPC.

3. All the above petitions were disposed of by the Karnataka High Court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused have filed the present special leave petitions. As these special leave petitions challenge the same order and arise out of the same case, we are disposing them of by this common order.

4. Dealing with the aforesaid criminal petitions filed by the petitioners, the High Court opined that if at all the statements of the charge-sheet witnesses and other documents are not supporting the charges framed against the accused-petitioners, they are at liberty to take advantage of the same for seeking their discharge in the pending criminal proceedings.

5. While dismissing the criminal petitions, the High Court directed A1 to cooperate with the investigating officer to get his blood samples drawn from qualified doctors and also to take his voice samples for the purpose of investigation. He was further directed to voluntarily appear before the qualified doctors identified by the investigating officer to subject himself to medical test on the day and date fixed by the said qualified doctors to conduct such test on him as the doctors deem fit pursuant to the order dated 18/6/2012 passed by the trial judge in C.C. No.204 of 2010. The High Court made it clear that if A1 fails to comply with the said order, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to take A1 into custody for the limited purpose of taking his blood samples, voice test and subjecting him to medical test and shall release him after completion of the tests.

6. The High Court also dismissed the application filed by one Smt. Arathi Rao, a complainant for impleading her in each of the four criminal petitions, observing that the presence of impleading applicant is not necessary at this stage and granted her liberty to make an application before the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.204 of 2010. Finally, the High Court observed:

“While dismissing the aforesaid criminal petitions a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 629

IMPORTANT POINTWhen cognizance is not taken for offence under one section out of many in the charge sheet, it cannot be done during pendency of criminal application before High Court, more so in absence of any material.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
When cognizance is not taken for offence under one section out of many in the charge sheet, it cannot be done during pendency of criminal application before High Court, more so in absence of any material.