Karnataka High CourtM. Venkata Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By on 25 April, 2017Author:Anand ByrareddyBench:Anand Byrareddy1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2017

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.8604 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

M.Venkata Reddy,
S/o Venkatarami Reddy,
Aged 49 years,
Residing at No.8/201,
I Floor, II Cross, 'B' Block,
A.E.C.S.Layout
Bengaluru - 560 027.
Presently Residing at
No.18, Prakrithi Enclave,
Panathuru-Balagere Road,
Panathuru, Bengaluru - 560 087.
                                          ...Petitioner
(By Shri Hashmath Pasha, Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka by
       K.R.Puram Police,
       Bengaluru - 560 036.
       (Represented by State
       Public Prosecutor).
                                2




2.    M.Bhaskar Reddy,
      S/o Late R.Malla Reddy,
      Aged about 44 years,
      Residing at No.58, I Floor,
      III Cross, 10th Main,
      Indira Nagar,
      Bengaluru - 560 038.
                                                 ...Respondents

(By Shri Vijayakumar Majage, Additional
State Public Prosecutor for R-1
Shri S.Balakrishnan, Advocate for R-2)
                             *****

      This Criminal Petition is filed underSection 482of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the
proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.22020/2013 on the
file of X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru which is arising out of
Cr.No.288/2012 of K.R.Puram P.S., Bengaluru as an abuse of
process of Law and subsequently the order of taking cognizing
and issue of process dated 07.11.2016 passed in
C.C.No.22020/2013 on the file of X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru
which is arising out of Cr.No. 288/2012 of K.R.Puram
P.S.,Benglauru as an abuse of process of Law.

       This Criminal Petition coming on for Final Hearing this
day, the court made the following:

                          ORDERThe case of the petitioner is that respondent no.2 was said

to be the owner of landed property bearing survey nos.52, 53

and 54/1, situated at Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,3Bengaluru East Taluk.     He is said to have entered into an

agreement of sale dated 8.12.1995 to sell a portion of the land

in all these three survey numbers in favour of the petitioner.

Similarly, he is said to have entered into an agreement with

R.Venkata Reddy and Kasi Reddy from Davanagere in respect

of other portions. The entire sale consideration is said to have

been paid at the time of agreement with a condition to execute

the sale deed as and when the purchaser calls upon to perform

the contract dated 8.12.1995.It transpires that subsequent to the execution of the

agreement by respondent no.2, certain civil disputes had arisen

between the original owners who were the vendors of

respondent no.2 in respect of the self same properties and two

civil suits in OS 4708/1995 and OS 5280/2008 were filed on the

file of the    City Civil Court, Bengaluru.        The suit in

O.S.No.4708/1995 is said to have ended in a compromise

decree, whereby the respondent no.2 became the absolute

owner of the land involved in the said suit and the second suit4was also compromised and was disposed of. This is subsequent

to lodging of the First Information Report in this case.It is alleged that the agreement entered into by

respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner, Venkata Reddy and

Kasi Reddy had called upon respondent no.2 to meet at the land

mentioned above for discussion with regard to the completion

of the contract and when he went there on 11.06.2012, at

about 2.30 p.m. the petitioner and three other persons, namely

R. Venkata Reddy, Katrasani Rami Reddy, M.L.A. of

Banaganapalli Constitutency, Karnool District, Andhra Pradesh

State and his two gunmen armed with sten-guns and pistols and

Mr. Venkata Reddy, Manohara Reddy of Panayam Village,

Karnool District, Andhra Pradesh and one Masthan Reddy and

12 to 15 unknown persons were present at the spot. On seeing

them, the complainant is said to have scared and tried to flee

from the spot to save his life, on account of the aggressive

postures of the persons present. But he was caught hold of and

was forcibly taken to Soumya Apartment, which was situated5nearby and was confined in a room for four hours and at gun

point by the gunman of the MLA, he was forced to execute

certain documents. But since he resisted complying with the

demand, he was brutally beaten up and hence, he fell

unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he was in

Axon Hospital at Indira Nagar, Bengaluru.Thereafter, he had lodged a written complaint in respect

of these events, which was registered as Crime No.288/2012 for

offences punishable underSections 324,348and307of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the "IPC"

for brevity).It is on the basis of this complaint that investigation was

carried out and a charge sheet was filed against accused nos.2,

3, 4 and 6 for offences punishable underSections 143,324,348read withSection 149of IPC on 7.1.2013. In the charge

sheet, a note was said to have been put up by the Investigating

Officer that in respect of Katasani Rami Reddy and M. Venkata6Reddy and others are concerned, he had requested permission

of the Commissioner of Police and after obtaining such

permission and by conducting further investigation, a report

would be submitted to the Court.Further, it transpires that on filing of the charge sheet, the

Court of the Magistrate, Bengaluru took cognizance of the

offences against accused nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 and also issued

process returnable by 08.08.2013. Thereafter, on 12.11.2013,

the respondent-Police is said to have filed an additional charge

sheet as against accused no.5, accused no.1 and Kattasani Rami

Reddy for offences punishable underSections 143,324,348read withSection 149of IPC, without conducting any

investigation and without enclosing any additional documents.It transpires that   after filing of the additional charge

sheet, the Magistrate had not taken cognizance against the

petitioner and accused no.1, but the petitioner, on coming to

know of the filing of an additional charge sheet against him,7had voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate and obtained an

order of bail. The Magistrate, thereafter, had passed an order

on 30.07.2015 for framing of charge against all the accused

persons for the offences punishable underSections 143,324,348read withSection 149of IPC.         An application underSection 218of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

reconsideration of his plea of discharge was filed by accused

no.6, which was dismissed.The petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition in

Criminal Petition No.7694/2015 for quashing of entire

proceedings and this Court had disposed of the petition holding

that since cognizance had not been taken, he need not appear

before the Court. Now, cognizance has been taken against the

present petitioner.2. The primary contention that the second charge sheet,

in which the petitioner's name as accused, does not indicate that

the permission of the Court, which was condition precedent for8filing any charge sheet, has been obtained. This is reflected in a

note appended to the second charge sheet, to the       effect that

though a report has been forwarded to the Commissioner of

Police, permission from the court is awaited.3. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor being

called upon to ascertain whether any such permission has been

obtained would now plead that the documents produced on

instructions are incomplete and since the Investigating Officer

is not readily available, it is not evident that permission has

been obtained, but he seeks further time to obtain clarification.4. However, proceeding on the material on record, it is

apparent that at the time of filing of the second charge sheet,

naming the petitioner as one of the accused, there was no such

permission obtained. In the light of which, the charge sheet

would have to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed.          It is

made clear that an opportunity is granted to the State to initiate

appropriate proceedings on obtaining permission, which was

pre-requisite for filing any such second charge sheet and it is9also placed on record that the second charge sheet had been

filed without any further investigation or without any further

material being gathered.The petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for.Sd/-JUDGE

nv