Balachandra Prabhakara Kodlekere S/o Prabhakara Kodlekere and others v State of Karnataka and others

Karnataka High Court

11 December 2012

W.P. No. 14536/2010 and W.P. Nos. 65989-66000/2010 The Order of the Court was as follows : 1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 27/2010, registered for offences punishable under sections 120B, 153A & 153B, 292A, 295A, 499, 511, 298 r/w 34 IPC and also for an offence punishable u/s. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. These writ petitions are filed to quash the first information registered in Crime No.27/2010 and subsequent proceedings. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus to the Superintendent of Police of Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, to transmit the complaints as per Annexures 'B' to 'F' to the jurisdictional police for being registered and acted upon. 3. During pendency of these writ petitions, on 29.09.2010, final report was filed in Crime No.27/2010. On 18.06.2010, the request of the Investigating Officer for further investigation was accepted by the learned Magistrate, after further investigation, supplementary report has been filed, including offences punishable u/ss. 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. 4. Aggrieved by the permission granted for further investigation, petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No.2145/2012, which was dismissed by this court on 17.07.2012, however, reserving liberty to petitioners to challenge the order relating to further investigation in these writ petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for State. 6. The investigation records would disclose that these petitioners were the archaks and persons interested in Sri Mahabaleshwar Temple at Gokarna. Pursuant to the order passed by the Government of Karnataka, management of the temple was handed over to Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy of Sri Ramachandrapur Mutt. The petitioners with a view to wreck vengeance against Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy, superimposed photographs of Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy with the photographs of film actress by name Mallika Sherawat. The petitioners also used computer technology to show Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy in the company of semi naked film actress. The petitioners had conspired to promote enmity between classes in the place of worship. The petitioners published pamphlets and blue films with a view to maliciously insult religious belief of devotees of Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy of Sri Ramachandrapur Mutt. The petitioners have morphed photographs and video visuals of Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy with the film actresses and distributed pamphlets to public to give wide publicity that Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy was seduced by film actress Mallika Sherawat and they had quoted certain script of hindu mythology to compare them to sage Vishwamithra and Menaka. 7. During investigation, the Investigating Officer on the information volunteered by petitioners has seized incriminating articles. The petitioners had used morphed. photographs and visuals to malign reputation of Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy of Ramachandrapur Mutt. The petitioners have given wide publicity through print and electronic media. 8. After going through final report, I find that Investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses, who had seen petitioners distributing pamphlets and indulging in malicious publications against Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy. The incriminating articles such as pamphlets and mobile phones were recovered on the information volunteered by petitioners. As already stated, petitioners had vengeance against Sri Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamy. 9. These petitions are filed to quash the first information and subsequent proceedings. At this stage, this court will have to accept the investigation records at their face value. The facts narrated in investigation records will have to be accepted at their face value. The incriminating articles collected during investigation and facts narrated in statements of witnesses would constitute offences alleged against petitioners. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash first information report or final report. 10. The petitioners have called into question the order made u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C.U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has statutory right to further investigate if situation so warrants. The Investigating Officer can further investigate the matter u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has to inform the jurisdictional court about further investigation as a matter of propriety. There is no need for the Investigating Officer to seek permission of the court for further investigation. The court on consideration of final report may direct further investigation if so needed. In the case on hand, in the final report filed on 29.09.2010, the Investigating Officer had not conducted investigation in relation to offences u/ss. 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. 1986. During further investigation, the Investigating Officer collected photographs and visuals, which prima facie establish that petitioners had published morphed semi nude photographs of some of the famous film actresses. In my considered opinion, further investigation was conducted having regard to the nature of offences in the first final report submitted to the court on 29.09.2010. 11. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the court should not have taken cognizance of an offence punishable under section 120B IPCfor want of sanction u/s. 196 Cr.P.C. 12. U/s. 196 Cr.P.C., the court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A I.P.C., except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. The Court shall not take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B Indian Penal Code, other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings. In the case on hand, offences alleged against petitioners are punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards. Therefore, sanction for an offence punishable under section 120B IPC to prosecute the petitioners is not necessary. In any event, if petitioners cannot be prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 153A IPC for want of sanction, petitioners can raise such a contention before the jurisdictional court. Even otherwise, I find the final report is filed for offences punishable under sections 120B, 153A, 292, 295A, 298, 419, 469 r/w 34, 500, 511 r/w 149 IPC and for an offence punishable u/s. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and also for offences punishable u/ss. 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted. 13. In the result, I pass the following: - The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that observations made herein are restricted to this order and they shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits during subsequent stages of the case. Petitions dismissed