Judgment:
1 ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF JULY2014BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.234 OF2011C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4090 OF2011C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.957 OF2011C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4582 OF2012CRL.P.NO.234/2011: BETWEEN: SRI.GOPAL REDDY SHEELUM, B.E., M.B.A., P.G.D.C.A., ALSO KNOWN AND CALLED AS SRI.NITHYA BHAKTANANDA, AGED ABOUT47YEARS, S/O S.MALLA REDDY, PRESENTLY R/O NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA, KALLUGOPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER. (BY SRI K.RAGHAVENDRA, FOR SRI.C.V.NAGESH ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND:
1.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BIDADI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL ENQUIRIES, C.I.D., CARLTON HOUSE, 2 PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* CRL.P.NO.234/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED0412.2010 PASSED IN THE CASE DIRECTING THE REGISTRATION OF A CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES376 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 READ WITH SECTIONS415 506(1) AND120B OF THE IPC, AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES COMPLAINED IN THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE COURT AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE BEING RECORDED IN C.C.NO.204/2010, PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & CJM, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA. CRL.P.NO.4090/2011: BETWEEN:
1.
2. DHANASHEKARAN @ NITHYA SADANANDA, S/O THIRUVEGADAM, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/AT NITYANANDA DYANAPEETA, KALLUGOPALANAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. SMT.RAGINI @ MANITHYA SACHITANANDA, W/O SIVA VALLABANENI @ NITYA SACHIDANANDA, AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/O NITYANANDA DYANAPEETA KALLUGOPANAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT, NOW R/AT ESTEEM HERITAGE, 3/7, ROSE GARDEN ROAD, PEARL-203, J.P.NAGAR, V PHASE, BANGALORE – 560 076. ... PETITIONERS. (BY SWAMINI G.MOHANAMBAL, FOR SRI.ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADVS.) 3 AND:
1.
2. 3.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BIDADI POLICE STATION, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL ENQUIRIES, CID, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. K.LENIN @ NITYA DARMANANDA, S/O KARUPPAN, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, R/O VEPPAMPOONDI VILLAGE, SELAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, NOW R/AT C/O KUMAR AINTIRAM DEVELOPERS (PVT) LTD., BG-3, GOKUL APARTMENT, NEW NO.250, R.K.MUTTA ROAD, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI – 600 028. T.M.VISHWANATH, S/O B.T.MUTHTHUKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT28YEARS, MAJOR, R/AT NO.7, MANIKARAN PALAYAM, POOJARI PALAM, GANAPATI, KOVAI, TAMILNADU. ... RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2, SMT.T.S.RAJARAJESWARI, ADV. FOR R-3, NOTICE ISSUED TO R-4 THROUGH DGP, TAMILNADU POLICE REPORT AWAITED) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-* CRL.P.NO.4090/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.204/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARAM, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS376 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 READ WITH SECTIONS415 506(1), 120(B) IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED0412.2010 IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS TO PREVENT THE ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT. 4 CRL.P.NO.957/2011: BETWEEN: SRI.SIVA VALLABHANENI, ALSO KNOWN & CALLED AS NITHYA SACHITANANDA, S/O DR.SATYANARAYAN MURTHY, AGED ABOUT47YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O.NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA, KALLUGOPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER. (BY SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR FOR SRI.RAVI B. NAIK ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BIDADI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL ENQUIRIES, CID., CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS. (BY SRI.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* CRL.P.NO.957/2011 IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED0412.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR IN C.C.NO.204/2010. 5 CRL.P.NO.4582/2012: BETWEEN: NITHYANANDA SWAMY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS TIRU RAJASHEKARAN, AGED ABOUT34YEARS, S/O SRI.ARUNACHALAM, RESIDENT OF NITHYANANDA DHYANA PEETAM, NITHYANANDAPURI, KALLUGOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER. (BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.K, FOR SRI.C.V.NAGESH ASSTS., ADVS.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BIDADI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR RURAL CIRCLE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. (BY SRI.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP) ... RESPONDENT. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* CRL.P.NO.4582/2012 IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED1806.2012 PASSED IN THE CASE ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE INVESTIGATOR UNDER SECTION53A READ WITH SECTION1738) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO GIVE HIS BLOOD FOR A TEST, HIS VOICE SAMPLE FOR ANALYSIS AND SUBJECT HIMSELF FOR A MEDICAL EXAMINATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE AND TIME AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE INVESTIGATOR WITH COSTS, THROUGHOUT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
6. ORDER
Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.204/2010 pending on the file of CJM Court, Ramanagara, have come up in three petitions seeking quashing of the same, i.e., Crl.P.No.234/2011 is filed by accused No.2 in the said proceeding, namely Gopal Reddy Sheelum, Crl.P.No.957/2011 is filed by accused No.3, Siva Vallabhaneni and Crl.P.No.4090/2011 is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5, namely Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda and Ragini. The fourth petition in Crl.P.No.4582/2012 is concerned, it is filed by accused No.1, Nithyananda Swamy seeking to set aside the order dated 18.06.2012 passed in C.C.No.204/2010 under Section 53-A read with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., wherein he was directed to give his blood sample for test and his voice sample for analysis and also to subject himself for medical examination to assess his sexual potency.
2. The record would reveal that two complaints were filed against the 1st accused, Nithyananda Swamy, one was registered in Crime No.112/2010 by Crime Branch of Egmore, 7 Madras, based on the complaint by one Vishwanathan. Since the jurisdiction within which the accused person was residing being in Karnataka, the complaint was referred to Ramanagara Police, where it was registered in Crime No.142/2010. It is stated that another complaint is filed by one Mr.Lenin and the same is registered in Crime No.141/2010 by Ramanagara Rural Police. The records would disclose that the investigation in to the said complaint was entrusted to COD, on investigation, charge sheet was filed by COD Police. Pursuant to filing of the charge sheet, the proceedings is registered in C.C.No.204/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 read with Section 415, 506(1) and 120-B of IPC.
3. In the said proceedings, the grievance of the accused Nos.2 to 5 is that the offences alleged against the accused No.2 is punishable under Section 114, 120-B of IPC, in respect of accused No.3, it is punishable under Sections 201, 120-B of IPC, in respect of accused No.4, it is again under Sections 114, 120-B of IPC and in respect of accused No.5 the offences are punishable under Sections 376, 377, 120-B of 8 IPC, for which there are no materials available on record. The statements of charge sheet witnesses does not support the case of the prosecution inspite of that the aforesaid offences are charged against them and they are unnecessarily made to undergo the prosecution in the aforesaid proceedings, which is against their interest and since there are no materials for prosecution, proceedings against them should be quashed.
4. Admittedly the charge sheet is filed by the COD police after thorough investigation in to the alleged complaint. If at all the statements of the charge sheet witnesses and other documents are not supporting the charges framed against accused Nos.1 to 4, they are at liberty to take advantage of the same for seeking their discharge in the aforesaid proceedings. In the instant proceedings, accused Nos.2 to 5 have not even filed an application seeking their discharge from the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case. In such circumstances, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial to consider whether charge sheet is required to be quashed or the accused therein should face the trail. In fact, in catena of decisions, this Court and Apex Court has time and again held 9 that Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be invoked in rarest of rare cases. This Court find that the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for exercise of inherent power of this Court to quash these proceedings at this stage. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the petitions filed by the accused Nos.2 to 5 are premature in nature and the same are required to be dismissed. Accordingly Crl.P.Nos.234/2011, 4090/2011 and 957/2011 are dismissed. While doing so, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file application seeking their discharge provided they have sufficient materials to establish that there are no materials indicating involvement of each of them with reference to the offences alleged against them, which calls for prosecution.
5. In Crl.P.4582/2012 the offence alleged against first accused is an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC among other offences. It is seen that even before the charge sheet is filed, the first accused and others are said to have responded in the media to various allegations made in the complaint, which is said to have been recorded in a compact 10 disc and the said documents are seized for the purpose of investigation. It is stated that the voice sample of accused No.1 is necessary to compare with the voice recorded in the compact discs, which are seized. It is also stated that there are several statements by and on behalf of the accused No.1 to the effect that though he was aged about 30 and odd years at the relevant time of the alleged offence, his sexual potency was not in consonance with his age, indicating that he is not capable of performing such acts. When Section 376 of IPC is pressed in to service, it is necessary for the prosecution to gather and produce before the Court enough material to substantiate that he was capable of committing such an offence. In that behalf, if investigation needs subjecting the first accused for voice test, blood test and potency test, the prayer in that behalf appears to be just and proper as rightly observed by the court below.
6. In fact, the order dated 18.6.2012 passed on an application filed under Section 53A r/w 173(8) of Cr.P.C., which is impugned in this petition, appears to be just and 11 proper for the reason that the learned Magistrate has given careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties in the said application based on the rulings relied upon by them and thereafter, rightly come to the conclusion that in the fact situation submitting the petitioner i.e., accused No.1 in CC.No.204/2010 for voice test, blood sample test and potency test is essential. Since the order passed by the learned Magistrate being a considered order and not suffering from any illegality or irregularity, question of quashing the same at this juncture does not arise and the same would amount to stalling further investigation, which is essential to decide the correctness or otherwise of the charges imputed against the petitioner/accused No.1. Accordingly, the Crl.P.4852/2012 is dismissed.
7. In view of the Crl.P.4582/2012 being dismissed, the petitioner/accused No.1 in CC.No.204/2010 is directed to cooperate with the investigation officer to get his blood samples drawn from qualified doctors and also to take his voice samples for the purpose of investigation. He shall also voluntarily appear before the qualified doctors identified by 12 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 order dated 18.6.2012 passed in CC.No.204/2010. In the event of petitioner failing to comply with the direction of the court in cooperating with the investigating officer, it is open for the investigating officer to take the petitioner in to custody for the limited purpose of taking his blood samples, voice test and subjecting him to medical test and on completion of the same shall release him since he is already enjoying the bail granted in his favour. In the event of petitioner voluntarily subjecting himself for the aforesaid tests, then the question of taking him in to the custody does not arise. Accordingly, all the four petitions are dismissed.
8. While dismissing all the petitions, this Court would find that an application which is filed for impleading by one Smt.Arathi Rao in each of the four criminal petitions also does not merit consideration in these proceedings for the reason that these proceedings are filed to consider quashing 13 of the proceedings as against accused Nos.2 to 5 and quashing of the order passed for further investigation so far as accused No.1 is concerned. Therefore, the presence of impleading applicant is not necessary at this stage. If the applicant so desire, it is open for her to make an application before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.204/2010 by placing all the relevant records to demonstrate how she is necessary party to the proceeding in CC.No.204/2010. In such an event, based on the material to be produced by her, the learned Magistrate may take independent decision whether it is necessary to implead her in the said proceeding. Reserving such liberty to her, the application filed by her in I.A.1/2014 in Crl.P.Nos.4090/2011 and 957/2011 and I.A.2/2014 in Crl.P.Nos.234/2011 and 4582/2011 are dismissed.
9. While dismissing the aforesaid criminal petitions and impleading application filed by the alleged complainant seeking permission to come on record, this Court observe that the proceeding in CC.No.204/2010 is sufficiently old. Though the charge sheet is filed in the year 2010 even after four years 14 there is no progress and it is still at the stage of prosecution seeking further investigation in to this matter. Hence, this Court direct the Court of CJM, Ramanagara, to proceed with the matter without further delay. This Court would fix the next date of hearing in CC.No.204/2010 on 28.7.2014 in the presence of counsel appearing for accused 1 to 5 therein. The registry shall communicate a copy of this order to learned CJM, Ramanagar, to take up CC.No.204/2010 for hearing on 28.7.2014. AGV. Sd/- JUDGE.