A.K. Suresh Vs. Rajendra Peter and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- karnataka land reforms act, 1961.[k.a. no. 10/1962]. section 48a & karnataka land reforms rules, 1974, rule 19: [h.v.g. ramesh, j] grant of occupancy right - form of application rejection of second form no.7 in respect of different properties - challenge to held, rule 19 envisages that applicant shall furnish particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy in one or more than one taluk in which the applicant claims to be registered as an occupant. the requirement that the application must be exhaustive of all the lands claimed by the applicant obviously is based on certain purpose and preventing piece meal applications so that there may be consolidated enquiry and hearing by the tribunal competent to decide a particular application and such rule is based on order 2, rule.....order1. the petitioner who is an accused in c.c. no. 376 of 1995 for offences under sections 341, 324, 448 and 506, indian penal code pending on the file of the j.m.f.c., ii court, mysore, has filed the petition under section 482, criminal procedure code challenging the legality of the order dated 28-5-1991 of the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the said offences and directing issue of summons to the accused; and praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him and the order dated 19-9-1995 passed by the iii additional district and sessions judge, mysore in criminal revision petition no. 52 of 1991, affirming the order of the learned magistrate, is also challenged by him.2. a few undisputed facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner who is an accused in C.C. No. 376 of 1995 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 448 and 506, Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., II Court, Mysore, has filed the petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code challenging the legality of the order dated 28-5-1991 of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the said offences and directing issue of summons to the accused; and praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him and the order dated 19-9-1995 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 52 of 1991, affirming the order of the learned Magistrate, is also challenged by him.

2. A few undisputed facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as under:

At the relevant time the accused was working as S.I. of Police in N.R. Police Station, Mysore. Respondent 1-Complainant was working as a Physical Education Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, B.B. Mohalla, Mysore. His wife was working as a Staff Nurse at P.K.P.P. Hospital, Mysore. He was living with his wife and his two minor children in the hospital quarters No. 16. He sent his complaint dated 8-2-1989 by registered post addressed to the S.I. of Police, V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysore, from the Government K.R. Hospital, Bangalore where he was taking treatment for his injuries. That complaint was received on 10-2-1989 by PSI of V.V. Puram Police Station. That was a complaint against accused petitioner given by the complainant alleging commission of offences of criminal trespass, causing serious hurt to him, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation to kill him and of unlawful assembly. The serious allegations made in the complaint by accused are to the effect that on 5-2-1989 at .about 7.30 a.m., when he was still in his house the accused trespassed into his house in civil dress and started behaving with him in a wild manner abusing in vulgar language and mercilessly beating him with hands, boots and a lathi and thereby inflicting injuries on his face, head, stomach and all over the body. Then he directed the other policeman who had come along with him to take the accused dragging from his house and to put him in the police van that was parked nearby. He was thus removed from the house to the van and was taken to K.R. Hospital and was admitted there for treatment of his said injuries. It is further stated in Para 1 of his complaint given to the police that telephonic information of the incident was given by the complainant to V.V. Puram Police Station from the hospital on 5-2-1989, 6-2-1989 and 7-2-1989. He also sent his written complaint dated 8-2-1989 by registered post suspecting that no action would be taken by the concerned police because the accused himself was a Police Official.

3. On the said complaint dated 8-2-1989, the PSI of V.V. Puram Police Station, Venkatesh, registered the Crime No. 13 of 1989, against accused under Sections 448, 381, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR was despatched along with the complaint to the concerned learned Magistrate. After the investigation the said PSI, Venkatesh submitted 'B' Report to the learned Magistrate on 21-1-1992, in the said Crime No. 13 of 1989. In the meanwhile a notice was also issued to the complainant informing him that the 'B' Report was going to be submitted to the learned Magistrate. In response to the said notice the complainant appeared on 16-1-1992 and filed his objection statement dated 13-1-1992 protesting against the said 'B' Report and undertaking to prove the alleged offences against accused. In Para 4 of the objection statement he stated:

'To avoid repetition, the allegations made and the facts averred in the FIR (Complaint dated 8-2-1989) may kindly be read part and parcel with the averments of this objections to the 'B' Report'.

Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to examine and record the sworn statement of the complainant and all his five witnesses. Then he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 324, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused by his impugned order dated 21-8-1995. In order to determine the validity or otherwise of the impugned order it is essential to reproduce the whole of the order which is as quoted below:

'On the basis of the complaint filed by one S. Rajendra Peter, V.V. Puram Police have registered the case in Crime No. 13 of 1989 and submitted FIR to the Court on 13-2-1989. That after investigation, the concerned police filed 'B' Report to this Court and notice was also issued by the concerned police to the complainant regarding filing of 'B' Report. This 'B' Report was protested by the complainant by filing objection to 'B' Report.

2. In order to substantiate the contention taken by the complainant, complainant himself as P.W. 1 examined Sowbhagyavathi, Annamma, Subbalakshmi, Rajashekar, Nanjamma respectively as P.Ws. 2 to 6 on his behalf.

3. I have perused the papers and the objection filed by the complainant and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and other documents available in the record. From the perusal of these materials, I am of the opinion that the complainant has made out a prima facie case against accused under Sections 448, 341, 324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusing police report there is no ground to accept 'B' Report and there are sufficient grounds to take cognizance against accused. In the result, I pass the following: