GOPAL REDDY SHEELUM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.204/2010 pending on the file of CJM Court, Ramanagara, have come up in three petitions seeking quashing of the same, i.e., Crl.P.No.234/2011 is filed by accused No.2 in the said proceeding, namely Gopal Reddy Sheelum, Crl.P.No.957/2011 is filed by accused No.3, Siva Vallabhaneni and Crl.P.No.4090/2011 is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5, namely Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda and Ragini. The fourth petition in Crl.P.No.4582/2012 is concerned, it is filed by accused No.1, Nithyananda Swamy seeking to set aside the order dated 18.06.2012 passed in C.C.No.204/2010 under Section 53-A read with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., wherein he was directed to give his blood sample for test and his voice sample for analysis and also to subject himself for medical examination to assess his sexual potency.

(2.) The record would reveal that two complaints were filed against the 1st accused, Nithyananda Swamy, one was registered in Crime No.112/2010 by Crime Branch of Egmore, Madras, based on the complaint by one Vishwanathan. Since the jurisdiction within which the accused person was residing being in Karnataka, the complaint was referred to Ramanagara Police, where it was registered in Crime No.142/2010. It is stated that another complaint is filed by one Mr.Lenin and the same is registered in Crime No.141/2010 by Ramanagara Rural Police. The records would disclose that the investigation in to the said complaint was entrusted to COD, on investigation, charge sheet was filed by COD Police. Pursuant to filing of the charge sheet, the proceedings is registered in C.C.No.204/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 read with Section 415, 506(1) and 120-B of IPC.

(3.) In the said proceedings, the grievance of the accused Nos.2 to 5 is that the offences alleged against the accused No.2 is punishable under Section 114, 120-B of IPC, in respect of accused No.3, it is punishable under Sections 201, 120-B of IPC, in respect of accused No.4, it is again under Sections 114, 120-B of IPC and in respect of accused No.5 the offences are punishable under Sections 376, 377, 120-B of IPC, for which there are no materials available on record. The statements of charge sheet witnesses does not support the case of the prosecution inspite of that the aforesaid offences are charged against them and they are unnecessarily made to undergo the prosecution in the aforesaid proceedings, which is against their interest and since there are no materials for prosecution, proceedings against them should be quashed.