Material on record does not prima-facie disclose commission of the offence: KHC quashes abetment to suicide against 2 IPS officers and former Minister
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against former Minister K J Georeg and Senior Ips Officers A.M.Prasad and Pronab Mohanty for allegedly abetting Deputy superintendent of Police M.K. Ganapathy to commit suicide in July 2016,
While allowing the petitions filed by Mr. George, Mr. Prasad and Mr. Mohanty. Single Judge Bench of Justice John Michael Cunha has passed the order.
AS per the averments made in the petitions, the deceased M.K Ganapathy was serving in Karnataka Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the office of Inspector General at Mangaluru, he committed suicide on 0707-2016 in Room No 315 of Sri Vinayaka Lodge, Madikeri.
At the relevant point of time the accused No.1 wasa the Minister for Urban Plannin, Government of Karnataka; accused No.2 was the IGP Lokayukt, Bengaluru City and accused No.3 was the ADGP State intelligenc, Bengaluru City.
Justice Cunha, while quashing the orders of the special Court, observed that “I the evidence collected by the investigating Agency, even if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose mens rea or instigation of the offence under section 306r/w 34 pf IPCin the absence of any material to make out the ingredients of the above offence, there was absolutely no reason or justification for the Special Court to reject the well founded report filed by CBI and to take cognizance of the alleged offence and issue summons to the petitioners”
Further the Court observed that Regarding the same incident, the son of the deceased filed a complaint before Kushalnagar police. The same was not registered in view of pendency of UDR No.9/2016. Aggrieved by the non-registration of the complaint, the son of the deceased namely, respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint in PCR No.167/2016. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly FIR in Cr.No.89/2016 was registered in Madikeri police station. Accused Nos.2 and 3 approached this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.P.No.5285/2016 seeking to quash the above FIR. This petition was withdrawn with certain observations and in terms thereof, the DG and IGP, Karnataka entrusted the investigation to CID. In the mean-while, the father (respondent No.3) and one of the brothers of the deceased (respondent No.6 herein) filed W.P.Nos.49434-49435/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking direction to entrust the investigation to CBI. These petitions were dismissed. The appeals preferred against the order of the Single Judge was also dismissed by the High Court. The father and brother of the deceased carried the matter to Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that they apprehended foul play in the matter and that it could be a case of murder, even though the complainants earlier learnt it to be a suicide. It was also contended that the deceased soon before his death in a television interview had named the accused persons from whom he apprehended danger to his life. In view of this submission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the investigation to be handed over to CBI.
the Special Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence without the matter being referred under section 193 Cr.P.C. Further placing reliance on the decision of this Court in SRI. VIVEK AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER, 2017 SCC ONLINE KAR 4725 and DR. RAVI KUMAR v. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND ANOTHER’, ILR 2018 KAR 1725, it is argued that in the absence of the protest petition, challenging the closure report, the learned Magistrate could not have issued summons to the petitioners. These legal contentions, in my view, do not merit acceptance. Undisputedly, the final report was filed by the investigating agency pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.1571-1572/2017. The report was filed under section 173 Cr.P.C.. The procedure to be followed in accepting or rejecting ‘B’ summary report is concerned, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KAMALAPATI TRIVEDI V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL’, (1980) SCC (2) 91, this Court in ‘DR. RAVI KUMAR V. MRS. K.M.C. VASANTHA AND
ANOTHER’, ILR 2018 KAR 1725,
The bench has further said that Since the material on record does not prima-facie disclose commission of the offence by the petitioners, the action initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 being wholly illegal, perverse and amounting to abuse of process of court deserves to be quashed. It was also contended that the deceased soon before his death in a television interview had named the accused persons from whom he apprehended danger to his life. In view of this submission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the investigation to be handed over to CBI.
These statements which are duly supported by the medical records clinching point out that the deceased was suffering from Neurotic disorder, loss of memory and depression. Even laymen who came in contact with him have observed the abnormal behavior of the deceased. As already noted above, Divya Darshan his own close friend and colleague stated that the deceased was unable to recognize him. According to this witness the deceased was repeatedly telling him “that some Christians aretargeting him not to get good posting.” His grievance therefore was against Christians in general and not against accused Nos.1 to 3. Even the father of the deceased at an undisputed point of time has alleged that the deceased was suffering from depression and was frustrated in life. In the wake of this overwhelming evidence, the observation of the learned Special Judge that there is no prima-facie case to show that the deceased was suffering from any mental depression is nothing but perverse and ignoring the
obvious.
In the course of investigation, the CBI recorded statements of 108 witnesses including the family members of the deceased, his colleagues as well as various witnesses acquainted with various cases dealt by the deceased and on collecting the CDs of the interview given by the deceased came to conclusion that there was no foul play in the death of the deceased and it Regarding the same incident, the son of the deceased
filed a complaint before Kushalnagar police. The same was notregistered in view of pendency of UDR No.9/2016. Aggrieved by the non-registration of the complaint, the son of the deceased namely, respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint in PCRNo.167/2016. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly FIR in Cr.No.89/2016 was registered in Madikeri police station. Accused Nos.2 and 3 approached this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.P.No.5285/2016 seeking to quash the above FIR. This petition was withdrawn with certain observations and in terms thereof, the DG and IGP, Karnataka entrusted the investigation to CID. In the mean-while, the father (respondent No.3) and one of the brothers of the deceased (respondent No.6 herein) filed W.P.Nos.49434-49435/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking direction to entrust the investigation to CBI. These petitions were dismissed. The appeals preferred against the
order of the Single Judge was also dismissed by the High Court. The father and brother of the deceased carried the matter to Hon’ble Supreme Court contending that they apprehended foul play in the matter and that it could be a case of murder, even though the complainants earlier learnt it to be a suicide. It was also contended that the deceased soon before his death in a television interview had named the accused persons from whom he apprehended danger to his life. In view of this submission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the investigation to be handed over to CBI.was a clear case of suicide.
[Read the Order]
