1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7651/2012
BETWEEN:
K.S. Ravikumar,
Son of D.S. Siddappa,
Aged about 41 years,
Was R/at No.68, Sujay House,
2nd Cross, near Capital College,
Jaibuvaneshwari Layout,
K.R. Puram,Bangalore-560 036.

... Petitioner

(By Sri. S. Shankarappa, Advocate)

AND:
1. Basavanna,
Was working as PSI (Traffic)
On 30.03.2012,
K.R. Puram Traffic Police Station,
Old Madras Road,
K.R. Puram, Bangalore-560 036.
2. Station House Officer,
K.R. Puram Police Station,
Bangalore-560 036.

Respondents

(By Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for Respondent)

This Crl. P is filed under Section 482 CR.P.C. by the

advocate for the petitioner praying that this Honble Court
may be pleased to set aside the Order dated. 29.9.2012,
passed by the X Additional C.M.M., Bangalore in PCR
No.77/2012, and which was also confirmed by the
revisional court FTC-III, Bangalore in Cr. RP No.
25079/2012, dated 16.11.2012 and restore the complaint
from respondent No.2 and direct the Honble Court below
to proceed the case as per law.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure the
petitioner filed the above petition seeking to revise the
order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the X Addl.CMM,
Bangalore in PCR No.77/12 and duly confirmed by the
order dated 16.11.2012 passed in Crl.R.P.No.25079/2012
on the file of FTC-III, Bangalore.

2. The petitioner herein who is the complainant in

PCR No.77/12 filed the said case under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. against the respondent herein who is a police subinspector, K.R.Puram Traffic Police Station, Old Madras

Road, K R Puram, Bangalore.

oblivious

However, the tribunal

of the fact that the respondent was a police

officer, in the normal course referred the matter to the

Station House Officer, K R Puram Police Station for
conducting investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
vide its order dated 9.7.2012.

3.
the

Aggrieved by such reference to the Police Officer

complainant

preferred

Revision

in

Crl.R.P.No.25079/2012 on the file of FTC-III of Bangalore

contending that the said order of reference under Section
156(3) is erroneous and not in accordance with law as the
respondent against whom the allegations are made is a
Police Officer and referring the investigation to the very
same police station will prejudice his interest.

Learned

Judge of the FTC observing that as the learned Magistrate

acted in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation
even

before

taking

cognizance, question of learned

Magistrate examining the complainant on oath and his

witness before the Court would not arise, deemed it fit to
dismiss the revision.

4. Being aggrieved by such dismissal of the revision

petition, the complainant has preferred the above petition
inter alia contending amongst other grounds that both the
Courts have erred in passing the impugned orders and the
Court of the first instance ought to have taken cognizance
of the fact that the complainant had suffered injuries as
evidenced by the wound certificate, instead referred the
complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, which is not
proper and hence, is before this Court in a Criminal
Petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner apart

from reiterating the contentions raised before the Courts
below, relied upon the decision in Ramakrishna @ Babu

Bangari Bilgikar vs M K Patil reported in ILR 1977

(Karnataka)896.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Act 5 of
1898)- Sections 156(3), 190, 200 and 203-Serious
allegations made against police officers-Specific
request made to the Court to enquire the
allegations-Magistrate referring the complaint to
the Superior police officers-on receipt of report
dismissing the complaint-Request to substantiate
case not granted-Not proper.
The petitioner-complainant made serious
allegations against certain police officials in his
complaint and made a specific request to the
Court to take cognizance and enquire into the
same itself. But the trial court referred the
complaint to the Superintendent of Police and on
the submission of the report relying on the
decision in Burlis case, dismissed the complaint.
HeldWhen a specific request was made to the
Court to enquire the case itself the learned
Magistrate should not have dealt with the case in
a casual manner in ordering the investigation of
the complaint by the police officers. The Trial
Court failed to notice that the Superindendent of
Police did not examine the remaining witness.
Even the statements recorded did show that the
petitioner was detained in the police station. It will
be rather sad if an impression is created that man
subjected to illtreatment by police men can have
no redress in court of Law.

6. Further he submitted that already a complaint is

registered against the complainant/petitioner by the very
same Police Station, the Station House Officer of which
station is directed to investigate the matter and in the
circumstances, the complainant rightly apprehends that
there will not be an unbiased investigation.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader

submitted that the Magistrate has not committed any error
in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC
merely because a case is already registered against the
complainant in the very same police station, it cannot be
said that the investigation will be tainted and it will affect
the interest of the complainant to any extent as the officer,
who conducts the investigation though from the very same
police station, will be totally a different police officer and
by the time the investigation commences, there will not be
any personal conflict involved in the case.

Further, he

submitted that even as per the decision relied upon by the

learned

Counsel for

the

petitioner,

in case,

if the

investigation is to end up adverse to the interest of the

complainant, the complainant is always at liberty to rely
upon the decisions now relied upon and seek rejection of
such B report and as such, the impugned order does not
call for any revision in the present proceedings.

8. In view of the submissions made, the points that

arise for consideration are:
i)

Whether the impugned orders, dated 9.7.2012

passed in PCR No. 77/2012 on the file of the X
Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bangalore which is duly confirmed in Crl.R.P.

25079/2012 on the file of the Revisional Court
FTC-3, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, by its order dated
16.11.2012 are liable to be revised?;
ii)

What order?

9. Admittedly, the complaint is lodged against a

police officer against the excess of his duty in assaulting
the complainant black and blue, the accused, at the time
of alleged incident, was working as Police Sub-Inspector in
the very same police station to which the Magistrate has
referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C.

On perusal of the copy of the order of the

Magistrate, it is seen that without referring to the prayer

sought by the complainant in the said private complaint
seeking the Court to take cognizance of the offences
committed by the accused for the offences under Sections
120B, 167 and 325 of IPC., in the casual manner after
registering a case, has referred the case for investigation to
the Station House Officer of K.R. Puram Police Station
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

Further it is seen that

unmindful of the power vested with the Magistrate to

exercise its discretion with regard to certain cases, the
impugned order is passed. No doubt under Section 156(3)

of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to refer any

complaint for investigation to the police officer, but
nevertheless simultaneously, discretion is also vested to
the Magistrate under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., to decide as
to whether the facts and circumstances of the case
warrants enquiring into the case by the Magistrate himself
and as such, such a discretion ought to have been
exercised by the Magistrate.
10. Admittedly, the complaint is lodged against the
police officer with regard to the alleged offence said to have
been committed by him.

In the circumstances, the

apprehension of the revision petitioner that if another

police officer is directed to hold an enquiry against such
act of a police officer, fair justice will not be there and there
is always possibility of tainted investigation by the
concerned investigating officer cannot be ignored.

11. In the circumstances further it is also not as if

the Magistrate is not empowered to enquire into the matter
by himself/herself and it cannot be said that the impugned
order which is passed without going to the contents of the
complaint is not liable to be reviewed.

Thus, both the

impugned orders are liable to be revised.

12. Accordingly, the above petition is allowed setting
aside the impugned order, dated 9.7.2012 passed in PCR
No.77/2012 passed by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore directing the SHO, K.R.Puram Police
Station, Bangalore, to conduct the investigation under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and also the order passed by the
Revisional Court FTC-3, Bangalore in Criminal Revision
Petition

No.

25079/2012,

Mayo

Hall,

Bangalore.

Consequently, the concerned Magistrate is hereby directed

to proceed with the matter by exercising the power vested

10

with it under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by giving opportunity to

the concerned.

SD/JUDGE

Brn/Nsu