MADHAVI KODANDHUR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY DK CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

2. GANESH K.S AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SITHARAMA GOWDA NO.1-311, UDANADKA HOUSE, CHARVAKA VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK 574 221, DK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R1. SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., PUTTUR, D.K. IN P.C.R.NO.3 OF 2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7873 CRL.P No. 5527 of 2022 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the accused in CC.No.987/2021 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K, (Crime No.5/2021 in DK CEN Crime Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 120B, 171G, 503, 499 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act') is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

2. Heard Sri. Chandranath Ariga. K, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. S. Raj Shekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7873 CRL.P No. 5527 of 2022 HC-KAR My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS

4. Facts of the case in brief is that, respondent No.2 has filed the private complaint before the Trial Court in PCR.No.3/2021 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 120B, 171G, 503, 499 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 67 IT Ac against the petitioner. The Trial Court referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation charge sheet came to be field for the offences under Sections 171G and 504 of IPC. The Petitioner being the accused, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, now pending in CC.No.987/2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent has not filed the first information under Section 154 of Cr.P.C with the police, but directly approached the learned Magistrate by filing the private complaint, which is bad under law and there is violation of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava And Anr V.S State Of - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7873 CRL.P No. 5527 of 2022 HC-KAR U.P And Others1 case. But the fact remains that, the respondent had invoked Sections 500 and 499 of IPC and under such circumstance, no first information could be filed with the police. Section 199 of Cr.P.C is a bar for filing such information with the police, and it is only the private complaint which is to be filed. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, when the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC is alleged, the learned Magistrate could not have referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Even though, the learned Magistrate has referred the entire complaint for investigation, it is to be noticed that the respondent has alleged commission of the offences under Sections 504, 120B, 171G, 503 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 67 IT Act. The Police was required to conduct investigation and accordingly, it was referred for investigation, even though, learned Magistrate could not have referred the complaint for offence under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC to the Police. There was non application of mind by the learned 1 AIR 2015 SC 1758 - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7873 CRL.P No. 5527 of 2022 HC-KAR Magistrate to that extent. However, the fact remains that, after investigation, the final report was filed only for the offence under Sections 179G and 504 of IPC. There is no final report regarding the offence under Section 499 and 500 of IPC and under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceeding on the said ground.

7. The final report filed by the Investigating Officer discloses that there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence under Section 171G of IPC. Admittedly, respondent had contested the election and at that time objectionable statement relating to his personal character and conduct was said to have been published and circulated through Whatsapp group. Ofcourse, it is stated that the said chats/messages were subsequently deleted, but there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence under Section 171G of IPC.

8. The other offences alleged against the petitioner is under Section 504 of IPC, which refers to his intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. It is the specific contention of the complainant initially and now the contention of the prosecution that objectionable messages relating to the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7873 CRL.P No. 5527 of 2022 HC-KAR character and conduct of the respondent who was the candidate contested for the election, were circulated in the group. Under such circumstance, definitely Section 504 of IPC could be invoked.

9. In view of the above, I find strong prima facie materials to constitute the offence under Sections 171G and 504 of IPC. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal case initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10