Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 559
High Court of Karnataka
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya, Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharati Swamiji (Formerly Known As Sri Harish Sharma), Bangalore
Versus
State of Karnataka & Others
Writ Petition No.43825 of 2014 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 09-10-2014
For the Petitioner:B.V. Acharya, Sr. Counsel for P.N. Manmohan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3, Prof. Ravivarmakumar, Advocate General, R2, M.T. Nanaiah, Sr. Counsel for Shankarappa, Prabhugouda B. Tumbigi, Advocates.
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 4 & 200: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Complaint - Accused when produced before Magistrate made written complaint making allegations against petitioner - Magistrate ordering to keep said complaint in sealed cover - Held, There is no reason for the Magistrate to keep the said document in safe custody because it is not the statement of the complainant in that case or the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as mentioned by the Magistrate it is a complaint made against the petitioner by the victim who was arraigned as an accused in the said case. The Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure when any complaint is lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C making certain allegations which constitute any cognizable offence. The Magistrate on going through the averments in the said written complaint by exercising the powers under Section 190 (a) Cr.P.C, should have taken cognizance of the offence and by examining the complaint, and her witnesses if any, and after providing opportunity to the complainant, passed appropriate orders either under Section 203 or under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. If for any reason the Magistrate is of the opinion that some investigation by the police is required she should have referred the matter to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and acted upon such report later.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Petition filed through power of attorney holder - In the instant case though the petitioner has filed the petition through his power of attorney holder, in order to resolve the anomaly, he has also filed affidavit along with reply to the statement of objections filed by the State in which he has fortified and clarified that the contentions taken-up in the petition are all on the basis of his instructions and they are all true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Though technically the procedure is not strictly followed nevertheless, it is substantially followed. It is a well propounded principle of law that the court is not precluded from disposing of the matter on merits by ignoring the minor defects or technicalities. The technicalities which do not go to the root of the power of administrating justice by the court, then such technicality should be suppressed in order to advance justice. Therefore, instead of throwing out the petition on technical grounds, High Court preferred to deal with the matter on merits.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Quashing of FIR and further proceedings - Alleged inordinate delay in filing complaint - Held, The High Court while dealing with the matter under Section 482 cannot give any finding whether the explanation given for the delay in filing complaint is properly explained or whether such delay has resulted in embellishment or concoction of a story against the petitioner, accused or whether such explanation is improbable. At the time of exercising powers under, the court cannot go in detail with regard to the factual aspects of the case for to find out the truth or falsity of the explanation given and comparing the same with other parts of the First Information Report and the statement of the victim. That would also amounts to appreciation of the materials on record rather than sifting the materials, even for limited purpose. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow even while considering the matrix of the case for any purpose in favour of either of the persons. If the court does that act, it would definitely prejudice the parties to the proceedings. The test that has to be applied by the court is that, the fact stated against the accused, has to be accepted as per the averments in the FIR or in the complaint or in the statement of the victim. It is not permissible at the stage of quashment of the criminal proceedings, even appreciating the facts even for limited purpose in a summary manner. If the instances narrated in the FIR plainly explains the situation those incidents and explanation have to be taken on their face value, though they may give rise to different colours on looking at them with different perceptions. Though in this particular case there is delay, the same is subjected to the explanation offered. The delay has to be considered by the investigating officer at the time of investigation in order to ascertain whether the other materials collected by him supports the case of the petitioner and that because of the delay the case has been concocted against the petitioner. This can only be done by means of thorough and meticulous investigation. Therefore, the delay itself, is not sufficient at this stage to quash the proceedings holding that the entire story of the victim is concocted.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Quashing of FIR and further proceedings - FIR by daughter alleging that her mother was sexually exploited by petitioner, Pontiff of Math - Allegations and counter allegations against each other - Plea that complaint filed with mala fide intention to bring down status and reputation of petitioner - Reputation of not only petitioner but also of the victim was at stake - High Court declined to quash proceedings at stage of investigation.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Quashing of prosecution - Held, While exercising the powers under Section 482 the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision or the trial Court in order to come to any definite conclusion on the basis of the factual matrix of the case. If the court is disabled from coming to a definite conclusion in such circumstances the court should not exercise powers under Section 482 to stifle the legitimate prosecution.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 482: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Quashing of proceedings/ investigation - Entire facts of case were incomplete and hazy and matter found to be requiring thorough investigation by effective investigating agency - High court declined to quash proceedings by interfering with investigation.
1. The petitioner moved this court seeking issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or Order quashing all further proceedings and the FIR dated 28.8.2014 registered in Crime No.164/2014, registered by Girinagar Police, (FIR in Crime No.219/2014, registered earlier by Banashankari Police, transferred to Girinagar Police) and for such other reliefs as the court deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.
2. An interim prayer was also made by the petitioner seeking some protection from arrest during the pendency of the petition. The case came up before this Court on 8.9.2014 and the Court heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya and Sri Narayana Reddy learned State Public Prosecutor and also Sri Shankarappa who has taken notice for the second respondent who have protested the granting of the interim prayer. On 9.9.2014, this Court considering the detailed arguments with regard to the interim prayer passed an order directing the investigating officers not to arrest and interrogate the petitioner till next date of hearing. Time to time, the said order has been extended by this Court. At the time of passing of the interim order, this Court has expressed that the entire materials were not placed before the Court. The FIR produced found to be incomplete and insufficient to draw any inference as to the allegations made in the FIR even broadly accepted, constitute any cognizable offence as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents. The court, therefore, directed the respondents to produce all the necessary materials before the Court and also to file the statement of objections, so that the Court can look into the entire materials on record and to pass appropriate order on merits of the case.
3. The pleadings of the parties are complete. It is the case of the petitioner that, The petitioner is the Pontiff of Shree Samsthana Gokarna-Shree Ramachandrapura Math, Hosanagar , Shimoga District. The said math is founded about a thousand three hundred years ago at Gokarna Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The and the pontiff acquired large number of disciples, lot of name, fame and reputation.
4. The respondent No.2 had lodged FIR, before the police against the petitioner making allegations that, her mother (victim) had been sexually exploited by the petitioner herein and that her mother was about to file a complaint to the Police in this regard. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner and his associates had in fact given a false complaint against the father and mother of the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent lodged FIR seeking protection from the Police. It is also alleged that the supporters of the petitioner making threatening calls to them stating that they would cause physical injury and life threat was also given to them. On the basis of the said allegations Crime No.164/2014 was initiated on 26.8.2014. The petitioner's counsel has contended that the victim of the case is the mother of respondent No.2. The nature of allegations and the facts of the case as in the FIR, do not disclose any cognizable offence in order to investigate any matter against the petitioner. The petition also discloses that number of cases including a PIL have been filed against the for which the petitioner is the pontiff and some cases are pending before the High Court and etc., It is also contended that an association by name 'Gokarna Hitarakshana Samithi' and another NGO by name Astra have filed PIL in WP No.36998/2013(GM-RES-PIL), as they were not happy with the handing over of the Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple administration to the hands of the petitioner. After the happening of the said event, some disgruntled people having vested interest started continuous attack on the and the petitioner -pontiff personally. In this regard, there are several cases pending specifically alleging that the second respondent's father and mother (victim and her husband) by na
