HANUMANTH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 29-5-1978 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Crl. Rev. No. 66/1978 on the file of his court whereby he has set aside the order dated 13-10-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mudhol in C.C. No 491 /1978 directing the issue of process against respondents 1 and 2 who are accused 4 and 5 respectively in the complaint filed before the Magistrate. One Hanmappa Ramappa Paramanatti, of Mirji taluk Mudhol was attacked on the road between Mallapur and Miraji at about 3-30 p.m. on 31-7 78 and was hacked to death. On the same day, on information furnished about the said incident by one Bhimappa Mareppa Doddanavar, the petitioner, who claims to be a brother of the deceased Hanmappa Ramappa Paramanatti lodged a complaint to the police, Mahalingpur Police Station.

(2.) On the basis of his complaint the Head Constable incharge of the police station registered a case in crime No. 52/1978 for the offence punishable under Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149 IPC, against five persons including respondents 2 and 3 and took up investigation of the case. However, during the course of investigation the complainant suspected the bona fides of the police and the likelioood of the police not sending some of the accused for trial.

(3.) He therefore filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against all the five persons named as accused in the complaint lodged to the police. He filed that complaint on 18-8-1978. The learned Magistrate, who recorded the sworn statement of the complainant under S. 200 Cr. P. C., on coming to know that investigation of the same offence by the police was already in progress, acting under S. 210 Cr. P.C. stayed further proceedings and called for the report of the police. When the police investigation was complete and the Sub Inspector of Police submitttd a charge sheet before the Magistrate against A-1 Yellappa and A-2 Venkappa Laxmappa, showing the remaining three as not sent up for trial, the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offences on the police report as against A-1 and A-2, proceeded to inquire into the complaint before him, so far as the remaining three accused were concerned. He recorded the statement of one witness, examined on behalf of the complainant on 5-10-1978 and another witness on 13-10-1978 and being of the view that there were sufficient grounds to proceed, he ordered issue of process as against the Respondents 2 and 3, who were arraigned as accused A-4 and A-5 in the complaint. Being aggrieved, when Respondents 2 and 3 (A-4 and A-5) approached the Sessions Judge in revision questioning the correctness of the issue of process against them, the learned Sessions Judge being of the view that the provisions of S. 210 Cr. P. C. were complete bar against the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences on the complaint, after taking cognizance of the offence on the police report, having set aside the order of issue of process, the complainant has come up in revision to this court. It may also be mentioned that the learned Magistrate, in the meanwhile having committed the case as against A-l and A-2, to the Court of Session, for inquiry and trial, on I. A. II filed by the complainant, the further proceedings in the Sessions Case have been stayed. In view of the contentions advanced by Mr. K. Channabasappa learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Shanthanu Patil appearing for Respondents 2 and 3, what requires to be considered is : whether the view taken by the Sessions Judge that the provisions of S. 210 Cr. P.C. were bar against the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences on the complaint is correct. S. 210 Cr. P.C. which deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence reads as follows :