S. SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.145/2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapur for the offence punishable under Sections 167, 330, 342, 348, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC (arising out of C.C.No.572/2014 on the file of Additional JMFC, Chikkaballapur and grant such other reliefs as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein had lodged the complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same is numbered as PCR No.215/2013. The learned Magistrate, after receiving the complaint proceeded to record the sworn statement and after recording the sworn statement, issued the process against these petitioners. The complainant in the complaint made a specific allegation against these petitioners that on 14.05.2010, at about 5.30 a.m., accused No.2 along with his constables came to his house and at that time, his son was not in the house. Hence, the police instructed to bring his son to Chikkaballapur Police Station for some enquiry. On the same day, one of the friends by name N. Byregowda has called the complainant on his mobile to inform that he had received the call from Circle Inspector i.e., accused No.1 enquiring about the complainant and his reputation and accordingly, the complainant went to the police station along with his son. The complainant was also called in connection with the case, which was registered for snatching of the gold chain, in Crime No.169/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.

(3.) The complainant in the said complaint had appeared before the police but not identified the son of the complainant and after making the enquiry of the complainant's son, the complainant was relieved with the assurance that they would send his son back after further enquiry, but his son was not sent back and instead, he was detained in the police station in illegal custody for a period of 2 days and he was subjected to all sorts of torture and assault. The petitioners herein subjected the complainant's son for mental as well as physical torture. It is also the allegation in the complaint that on 15.05.2010, the complainant met Mr. Burman, the police officer and explained the attitude of the petitioners. Inspite of his advice, the complainant's son was not released from the illegal custody and instead all sorts of torture were given to him. That on 16.05.2010 at about 2.30 p.m. the complainant went to the police station again and met accused No.1 and told him that his son is innocent. Accused No.1 assured that he would release the complainant's son and asked accused Nos.3 to 6 to bring his son and forcibly took his signature on blank paper in the Register maintained at the police station and on white paper as well as on the brown paper book. Accused No.1 even not allowed the complainant to verify the contents of the Register. Subsequently, the said Manu was released from the illegal custody. He was humiliated, assaulted and coerced and further threatened not to reveal the same to anybody. They also threatened him that if he does so, they would put him behind bars permanently and also foist false cases against him for robbery and dacoity.