- (1.)One Nithya Dharmananda @ Lenin filed F.I.R. No. 112 of 2010 on 4/3/2010 at P.S. Central Crime Branch, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable Under Sections 295A, 376, 377, 420, 506(1) r/w. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("the Indian Penal Code") against Nithyananda Swamy @ Tiru Rajashekaran ("A1"), Gopal Reddy Sheelum @ Nithya Bhaktananda ("A2"), Siva Vallabhaneni @ Nithya Sachitananda ("A3"), Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda ("A4"), Ragini @ Ma Nithya Sachitananda w/o. Siva Sachidananda ("A5") and others. As the incident had occurred in Karnataka, the case was transferred to Karnataka for investigation. On 26/11/2010, Final Report in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 was filed by Bidai Police Under Sections 376, 377, 420, 417, 201, 114, r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code On 4/12/2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara District took cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners. Four criminal petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Karnataka by the Petitioners. Criminal Petition No. 957 of 2011 was filed by A3 praying that order dated 4/12/2010 passed in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 taking cognizance of offences Under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code be set aside and further proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed. Criminal Petition No. 4582 of 2012 was filed by A1 for setting aside order dated 18/6/2012 passed in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 on the application filed by the prosecution Under Section 53A r/w. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") directing A1 to give his blood for test, his voice sample for analysis and subject himself to medical examination. Criminal Petition No. 4090 of 2011 was filed by A4 and A5 and Criminal Petition No. 234 of 2011 was filed by A2 praying for quashing the charge-sheet filed in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 and for setting aside order dated 4/12/2010 taking cognizance of offences Under Sections 376, 377, 420, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 419, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)All the above petitions were disposed of by the Karnataka High Court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused have filed the present special leave petitions. As these special leave petitions challenge the same order and arise out of the same case, we are disposing them of by this common order.
(3.)Dealing with the aforesaid criminal petitions filed by the Petitioners, the High Court opined that if at all the statements of the charge-sheet witnesses and other documents are not supporting the charges framed against the accused-Petitioners, they are at liberty to take advantage of the same for seeking their discharge in the pending criminal proceedings.