Karnataka High Court Mr.R.K.Vijayasarathy vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2014
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7668 OF 2013
S/o late Ratnam Krishna Iyengar
Age: 68 years
Vaishnavi 5th B Cross
Banashankari 1st Stage
Bangalore – 560 050 … Petitioner (By Sri.Mahesh S., Adv.)
The State of Karnataka
By Halsur Gate Woman Police Station
Bangalore – 560 002 … Respondent (By Sri.B.J.Eswarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the VI A.C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C.No.19847/2012 and allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. 2
This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is claimed that the petitioner’s son Shri Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam was married to Smt.Savitha Seetharam in the year 2002 and that they lived in the United States of America. They set up their matrimonial home at the United States of America and thereafter they had returned, but the petitioner’s daughter-in- law did not continue in the company of his son. On the other hand, she had filed criminal cases alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in a case bearing P.C.R. No.3418/2012, now numbered as C.C.No.19847/2012 before the Court of 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The complaint having been referred to the jurisdictional police, they have laid a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 120B read 3
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner’s wife was also arrayed as accused. But, this Court, in Criminal Petition No.2155/2012 has quashed the proceedings insofar as she is concerned. The petitioner, however, faces the proceedings along with his son. The petitioner’s grievance is that the police had not investigated the case in an appropriate manner in relation to the informant’s allegations. Insofar as the allegations of dowry demand and threats held on 10.2.2012 at their residence at Malleshwaram, Bangalore against the complainant and her sister-in-law is concerned, the petitioner claims that he was using a cell phone at that time with the service provider Airtel bearing number 9845304558 and that the cell phone of the complainant is also available as well as that of her sister-in- law and the petitioner therefore had requested the police to collate the call details recorded along with the cell tower / location information from the service provider, namely, Bharati Airtel Limited, to establish that the petitioner as well as the complainant and her sister-in-law were not present together and they were at 4
different locations. This request has been negated. The petitioner having made an application before the Magistrate, the Court below has held that an application invoking Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is premature and if an appropriate application is made at the appropriate stage, it could be considered. It is this which is sought to be questioned in this petition.
3. The petitioner’s line of thinking in establishing his innocence, not being readily accepted by the police, is in their discretion. The Investigating Officer cannot be told as to how the matter has to be investigated. In its wisdom, the Court below has also held the Investigating Officer and if no such information is gathered, it is not for the petitioner to seek that there be a direction to the Court or to the police in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the information is crucial to the case and it would establish that he was not present at the place where such threats were made out.
4. In any event if the petitioner claims that the information which is recorded is deleted or would no longer be available after a 5
point of time, with the service provider, in this regard no material is produced before the Court. Even if it is so, it is for the petitioner to take a contention in the proceedings on the defense that such a material was overlooked and was deliberately avoided and the inference that could be drawn would be at the discretion of the Court below. With that observation on the contention of the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.
5. In view of the disposal of the petition, IA.1/2013 filed for grant of stay does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly.