( 1 ) THIS petition is filed against the orders dated 11-4-91 and 26-9-91 holding that the sanction is not necessary and for issuing summons against the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts in nut-shell are as follows :- One Smt. Banumati, second wife of the second respondent died in unnatural circumstance on 27-8-89. In Sep. , 1989, a complaint was registered by the brother of the deceased Sudhakar in Crime No. 182/89 by the Kolar Police Station for the offence punishable under Secs. 302 and 201, IPC. The petitioner was the I. O. On 6-11-89, the respondent got the anticipatory bail from the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar in C. Misc. No. 160/89. In the meanwhile a claim petition was filed by the respondent with the insurance company seeking insured amount on the policy of the deceased. On 5-4-90 the respondent alleged in the complaint that he is summoned by the petitioner to produce document relating to claim of insurance amount in respect of the deceased-Banumathi. Since the petitioner was not present, the respondent was asked to come on the following day. On 6-4-80, the respondent was brought for questioning in Crime No. 182/89. As he tried to run away, he was caught and was put in the lock-up and later on released on bail on the same day. The charge-sheet was filed in Crime No. 182/89 before the Sessions Judge, against the respondent for offence punishable under Secs. 302 and 301, IPC. After the respondent was released on bail, he informed the editors of HONNUDI and KOLARAVANI newspapers and gave concocted and fabricated version about the alleged incident of 6-4-90. The said newspapers widely gave publicity and it is alleged that the same harmed the reputation of the petitioner. Hence on 9-4-90, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Prl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in CC No. 580/90 for defamation against the respondent and Prabhakar, Editor of Honnudi under Sec. 500, IPC. The petitioner on 16-4-90 filed another complaint in CC No. 609/90 against the respondent and B. V. Narasimha Murthy, Editor of Kolaravani under Sec. 500, IPC. In both the cases, the summons were issued to the accused persons. On 21-9-90 the respondent filed the complaint in Cr. No. 37/90 against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 345, 323 and 504, IPC after lapse of nearly six months. The allegations in the complaint was that he visited the Police Station on 6th April, 1990 as directed. The petitioner demanded the illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- to delete his name. It is further alleged that the petitioner used abusive language against him and confined him in lock-up till 6 p. m. and later released on bail at 6 p. m. on the same day. On 11-4-91 the learned Magistrate takes the cognizance of Cr. 37/90 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 to 343 and 504, IPC and further holds that no sanction under Sec. 197 is necessary. Hence the impugned orders came to be passed.

( 3 ) MR. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that taking cognizance, issuing summons and also holding that sanction was not necessary is also illegal. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Navalgimath, learned Counsel for respondent submits that the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance and issuing the summons and also holding that sanction was not necessary. Both the Advocates relied upon various judgments. 3a. Mr. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the case of State of Mysore v. Manikyam, (1968) 2 Mys LJ 11, in the case of N. Huchmasthi Gowda v. Jammada Aiyappa, (1973) 2 Mys LJ 518, in the case of Ramesh B. v. K. Shankar, (1984) 1 Kant LJ 258, in the case of K. S. Prabhakar v. M/s. Bhadra SSK, Niyamith Doddapathi, (1995) 3 Kant LJ 85 : (1995 Cri LJ 2289), in the case of Premjit Maohanandav Mohanpani Karua, 1996 Cri LJ 836 (Orissa) and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Navalgimath, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decisions in the case of R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document