AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arali Nagaraj, J.—In this petition filed u/s 182 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have south for setting aside of the order dated 07.11 2008 passed in C.C. No. 4942/2008 by the leaned Addl. Civil judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC. Udupi directing registration of Criminal ease against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 365, 342, 504, 506 and 384 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Though this matter is listed today for admission, having regard to the nature of the relief south for in this petition. It is taken for final disposal and arguments of Sri Shivanagowda Doddamani, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, the learned HCGP are heard. Perused the charge sheet filed against the petitioners by the police concerned, the statements of CWs. 1, 2, 5 to 8 and other material placed on record by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Stated in brief the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the complaint filed by CW1 Smt. Latha, the wife of CW2. Sudhir and the statements of CWs. 1, 2 and 5 to 8 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer during investigation of the cast is as under:
(a) CW2 Sudhir is the husband of the complainant viz., CW1 Smt. Latha. His marriage with her was performed in the year 2004. In the year 2007 he married accused No. 4 Nithasha Damodhar Kundar, the daughter of late Damodhar Kundar. who is petitioner No. 1 herein as his second wife. He got two children from his first wife Smt. Latha and one child from the second wife viz., accused No. 4 Smt. Nithasha. He married the second wife suppressing the fact that he had already married Smt. Latha and had two children.
(c) On coming to know of the factum of first marriage of Sudhir with Latha and he having two children at the time of marriage of accused No. 4 as his second wife, accused No 1 Dhaval Dhamodhar Kundar, the younger brother of accused No. 4 Nithasha. accused No. 2 Vishwanath and accused No. 3 B.V. Swamy (who are respectively petitioner Nos. 3, 5, and 4 herein) became angry at CW2 Sudhir.
(d) At about 9.00 a.m. on 27.06.2008 while CW2 Sudhir was standing near the bus stop at Malpe near Kalmadi Bridge, accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively petitioner No. 3 Dhawal Dhamodhar and petitioner No. 5 Vishwanath came there in a ear bearing registration No. KA-03 MD-1489 and took him forcibly in the said Car and by 9.00 p.m. on the same day they brought, him to Bangalore. Then accused No. 3 viz. B.V. Swamy (petitioner No. 4 herein) joined accused Nos. 1 and 2. All the three accused wrongfully confined the said Sudhir in a room in Authentic Expression Gym in Bangalore City. Then all the said three accused assaulted him and also threatened him saying that since he had married accused No. 4 as his second wife suppressing his first marriage with the complainant Latha he should give them a sum of Rs. 25.00.000/- otherwise they would finish him. The said Sudhir was confined in the said room from 9.00 p.m. on 27.06.2008 till the morning of 29.06.2008.
(e) At about 11.00 a.m. on 28.06.2008 while the said Sudhir was confined in the said room, accused No. 4 Smt. Nithasha and also her mother viz., accused No. 5 Hemalatha'' Kundar (respectively petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein) also came to the said room and joined accused Nos. 1 to 3. During the previous night, accused Nos. 1 to 3 had telephoned to the house of the complainant and informed the complainant that her husband Sudhir was hospitalised. CWs. 5 to 8 respectively Janardhan. The father of Sudlur; Murali Shreyan, the brother of CW2 Sudhir; Deepak Shreyan. the elder brother of Sudhir; came to the said room and requested accused Nos. 1 to 5 to lease Sudhir At that lime, all the accused Nov 1 to 5 together threatened CW2 Sudhir and also CWs. 5 to 8 saying if a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- were not given to them, they would net leave Sudhir alive and they would finish him Though CWs. 5 to 8 tried to console accused Nos. 1 to 5 they could not.
(f) On 29.06.2008 all the said accused brought CW2 Sudhir to Vidhyaranyapura P.S. in Bangalore; City forcibly and produced him before the said police and lodged their complaint against him alleging that he married Nirhasha (A4) as his second wife suppressing his first marriage with Smt. Latha. Before he was brought, to the said police, all the a sensed threatened him that he should not disclose before anyone about his confinement and their assault on him and, if lie were to do so, they would finish him. Therefore he did not disclose anything before the said police when, he was produced before them by the accused. After he obtained bail in the said case, he disclosed everything before his wife CW1 Smt. Latha and she lodged her private complaint u/s 200 C.P.C.
(g) The said complaint was referred to police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. The Trial Court alter perusing the charge sheet and the entire material produced by the Investigating Officer along with the charge sheet, by its order dated 07.11.2008, took cognizance of the said offences against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 who are respectively accused Nos. 4, 5, 1, 3 and 2. However, no process is issued against petitioner No. 6 Jagadish along with the petitioners for the said offences.
Sri Shivanagowda Doddainani. the learned Counsel for the petitioners strongly contends that the entire allegations in the complaint and also the statements of CW1 complainant, CWs. 2, the victim, and 5 to 8 do not constitute any of the offences for which the Trial Court has taken cognizance and issued process against petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 herein by its order dated 07.11.2008 and therefore the said order deserves to be set aside.
Per contra. Sri Vijayakumar Majage the learned HCCP referring to the averments in the complaint, the statements of all the said witnesses, submits that the said material placed on record by the Investigating Officer prima fade establish commission of the said offences by all accused Nos. 1 to 5 therein and therefore the impugned'' order taking cognizance and issuing process against them for the said offences does not call for any interference in this petition.
On careful reading of the above case of the prosecution, as could be gathered from the averments in the complaint, further statement of CW1, the complainant Latha the statements of CW2. the victim Sudhir and also the statements of OWs 5 to 8 referred to supra, if is clear that CW2 Sudhir was forcibly taken by accused No. 1 and 2 at about 9 a.m. on 27.06.2008 while he was at Malpe and then he was brought in a car to Bangalore, he was wrongfully confined in a room at Authentic Expression Gym in Bangalore City throughout the night of 27.06.2008 and also till he was produced before the police of Vidyaranyapura Police Station on the morning of 29.06.2008. The said material further establishes prima facie that while the said Sudhir was confined in the said room, accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted him besides giving him threat to his life demanding from him a sum of Rs. 25.00,000/- on the ground that he married accused No. 4 as his second wife during the subsistence of his marriage with his first wife namely CW1 Latha and suppressing the factum of his first marriage.
Further, the statements of CWs. 2 and 5 to 8 clearly establish that accused Nos. 1 and 5 also joined accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the morning of 28.06.2008 in abusing and threatening the victim Sudhir while he was confined in the said room. This being so contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused that the entire material placed on record by the Investigating Office does not constitute any of the said offences cannot be accepted.
The law is settled that if the averments in the complaint, the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, disclose prima facie any cognizable offence, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 182 of Cr.P.C. Since the material placed on record by the Investigating Officer along with the charge sheet clearly establishes prima facie case against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for all the said offences read with Section 34 of IPC and against, accused Nos. 4 and 5 for the offence u/s 506 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC, the impugned order taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners herein does not call for any interference. Hence, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.