K S PUTTASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 2937 of 1996 on the file of the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore. He has also sought for quashing of the order dated 16-12-1996 passed by the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under sections 498-a, 302, 304-b, 506, 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act.

(2.) A notice of this petition was given to the prosecution and the respondent-state has filed a detailed objections.

(3.) THE brief facts that are necessary to dispose of this criminal petition are that on 9-1-1992 at about 5. 30 a. m. Smt. Sujatha w/o raveendra the third son of the petitioner suffered burn injuries in the house of the petitioner where she lived along with the petitioner, her husband, her mother-in-law and other family members. At about 6. 30 a. m. she was shifted to agadi nursing home, Bangalore and at the nursing home, she made a statement to the doctor stating that she suffered burn injuries accidentally. She was discharged from agadi nursing home on 11-1-1992 and she was admitted to the lakeview nursing home at Bangalore on 12-1-1992. At the time when she was admitted to lakeview hospital her parents were with her and she has made a statement before the doctor at lakeview hospital stating that she has suffered burn injuries accidentally. She was discharged from lakeview nursing home on 1-2-1992 and thereafter she was admitted to m. s. ramaiah college hospital. However, she died while undergoing treatment on 2-2-1992 and the cause of her death was due to the burn injuries. No complaint was lodged by any person till then. However, the death of Smt. Sujatha was published in a kannada newspaper published from Bangalore 'ee sanje' and a case was registered by the wilson garden police in criminal miscellaneous 107 of 1992 on 20-2-1992 and on the next day, the police sub-inspector of the said police station went and met the mother of the deceased, who later on filed the complaint. However, she refused to give a complaint or any statement to the police. On 23-2-1992 the mother of the deceased lalithamma lodged a complaint with the wilson garden police alleging offence under sections 498-a, 304-b, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act. First information report was sent to the court on the said complaint. After due investigation by the c. o. d. to whom the investigation was entrusted, filed a charge-sheet on 21-3-1994 in criminal case No. 2155 of 1994 before the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore. In the said charge-sheet, the police has shown the husband of the deceased Smt. Sujatha that is, raveendra as accused No. 1, Smt. Thayamma wife of the petitioner as accused 2 and one m. r. anand rama, administrator of m. s. ramaiah college hospital as accused 3. A note was put up along with the charge-sheet by the investigating officer stating that for want of proof, accused 4, 5 and 6 were not sent for trial. Accused 4 mentioned in the report, is none other than the petitioner. The learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence for which the charge-sheet has been filed and committed the case to the court of sessions. The court of sessions was seized of the matter after it was committed before it by the learned magistrate and the sessions case No. 50 of 1995 has been registered before the 23rd additional city civil and sessions judge, Bangalore. It is stated that in the said matter, accused persons had already started arguing for discharge of all the accused persons and the matter is still pending and the argument has not completed. At this stage, the investigating officer, filed another charge-sheet before the learned magistrate against a-1 to a-4 showing the petitioner as accused 4 for the same offences, for which cognizance was already taken by the magistrate earlier and which has been already committed to the court of sessions and the court of sessions has seisin of the matter and which is pending trial in the sessions case No. 50 of 1995. The learned magistrate on receipt of the charge-sheet on 16-12-1996 has noted that charge-sheet has been filed by the inspector of c. o. d. through the senior a. p. p. against accused 1 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 498-a, 302, 304-d, 506, 176, 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act. Original first information report in crime No. 118 of 1992 kept in criminal case No. 2155 of 1994 (which was the first charge-sheet and on which cognizance was taken and the matter which is already committed to the sessions court ). It is also written in the order sheet that the charge-sheet and connected papers were checked and accused 1, 2 and 4 were on bail and accused 3 was not arrested and the copies for the accused were also enclosed and thereafter, he took cognizance of the offence and directed registration of the case and also directed issue of summons to the accused persons.