D. T. VIRUPAKSHAPPA versus C. SUBASH

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 27-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 534 
D. T. VIRUPAKSHAPPA 
V. 
C.SUBASH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 722 of2015) 
APRIL 27, 2015. 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.482, 197 -
Quashing of proceedings - Summons issued against 
appellant-police official on the ground that appellant 
exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a 
D criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to extract 
some information with regard to death of one person and in 
that connection, detained the respondent in the police station 
for sometime - High Court refused to quash the criminal 
proceedings - Plea of appellant that magistrate could not 
E have taken cognizance of offence and issued summons to 
the appellant without sanction uls.197- Held: Going by the 
factual matrix, it is evident that the whole a/legation is on police 
excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case 
- The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with 
F the performance of the official duty of the appellant -
Therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance 
of the case without the previous sanction of the State 
Government - High Court missed this crucial point in the 
G impugned order- Impugned order by High Court is set aside 
as also the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate taking 
cognizance and issuing process to the appellant. 
H 
Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand Through 
The Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi and Anr. 
534 
D. T. VIRUPAKSHAPPA v. C. SUBASH 
535 
(2012) 12 SCC 72: 2012 (9) SCR 125; State of Orissa 
A 
Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Ors. v. Ganesh 
Chandra Jew (2004) 8 SCC 40: 2004 (3) SCR 504 -
relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
B 
2012 (9) SCR 125 
2004 (3) SCR 504 
relied on. 
Para 6 
relied on. 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal C 
Appeal No. 722 of2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2013 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 
2057 of2009 
C. B. Gururaj (For B. Subrahmanya Prasad) for the 
Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant is the accused in a private complaint filed 
D 
E 
by the respondenVcomplainant before Civil Judge (Jr.Div) and 
JMFC at Chikkanayakanahalli, Karnataka, on which the F 
learned Magistrate took cognizance, registered the case as 
C.C. No. 74/2009 and issued summons to the appellant. The 
case was registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 120, 
114, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (45 
of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 
G 
3. The appellant moved the High Court under Section 
482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 
referred to as 'CrPC'), which was declined by the impugned 
o~e~ 
H 
536 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
4. The facts and reasons, as stated in the impugned 
order, read as follows: 
"6. A perusal of the averments in the complaint, sworn 
statement of the complainant and his witnesses go to 
show that the complainant was picked up from his garden 
land at about 10.00 a.m. on 6/6/2006 in the morning. 
Further averment reveals that this petitioner came to the 
police station later in the evening and detained him till 
10.00 p.m. and also directed that he should not be let-
out till he reveals or confesses that he is involved in the 
murder of one Sannamma. These allegations in the 
complaint are further corroborated in the sworn statement 
of the complainant which is further fortified from the sworn 
statement of his two witnesses, namely, PWs. 2 and 3. 
The Court at this stage is required to consider only the 
sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses 
to come to a conclusion whether a prima facie case is 
made out for registering the case and issuing summons. 
It is not the stage for the Court to consider the defence of 
the accused as the same is well settled by the Apex Court 
as long as in the year 1976 in the case of Nagawwa Vs. 
V.S. Kojalgi reported in (1976) 3 SCC 736. In the present 
case, the allegation in the complaint, sworn statement of 
the complainant and his two witnesses clearly make out 
the offences alleged against the petitioner and other 
accused. If according to the petitioner, it is a false and 
fictitious complaint, it is for him to bring those materials 
when the said case is set down for hearing before charge 
before the learned Magistrate. It is too premature at this 
stage to co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.