MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR ,J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THIS petition is filed praying for quashing the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Court (Human Rights), Bidar in PHR No. 1/2012, by which the cognizance is taken against the petitioners and process is issued for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 326, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of IPC and read with Section 2(d) of Human Rights Act. The complaint is lodged by respondent No. 2 herein alleging that the complainant has suffered injuries and fracture of his hand which were caused by the petitioners while he was in illegal detention by petitioner No. 1. Similar allegations were made earlier by the complainant in his complaint lodged before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bidar in P.C. No. 10/2011. In the said complaint also offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 341, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC were alleged. The Police after investigation filed 'B' report in P.C. No. 10/2011. However, the complainant did not file protest petition and consequently, 'B' report was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.05.2012 and P.C. No. 10/2011 was closed. Thereafter, the complainant filed one more complaint before the Sessions Court (Human Rights), Bidar in PHR No. 1/2012 alleging almost the very allegations. The said complaint was also referred to Superintendent of Police for investigation. The Superintendent of Police after investigation has laid 'B' report. However, the Human Rights Court did not accept the 'B' report and took the cognizance and issued process against the petitioners. The said order is impugned in this petition.
(3.) LEARNED advocates on both sides argued in respect of their case. Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drawing the attention of the Court to Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Court and Human Rights Commission Rules, 2005 submits that the sanction to prosecute the public servant is not obtained by the complainant and therefore, proceedings vitiate. He further argues that the second complaint based on the same allegations is not maintainable.;