2015 (2) TMI 1324 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses writ appeal under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, deems rape allegations cognizable.

Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka and Ors.

The court dismissed the writ appeal, ruling it was not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The court found the allegations ... Continuation of Proceedings covered under Section 482 of Cr.P. C - HELD THAT:- The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has not only administrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals, but also has the power of judicial superintendence. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 has to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting their mere errors. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the appellant it cannot be said that Article 227 of the Constitution of India is attracted. And that notwithstanding the nomenclature of the petition, the learned single judge has dealt with and decided the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is evident that there are seriously disputed facts and that by itself would render the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as being wholly inappropriate and incongruous - In the case on hand, the petitioner has no grievance that the power of the investigation officer has been exercised mala fide or that the police officer has been misusing his powers. Therefore, the appellant is hardly in a position to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition filed before the learned single Judge, notwithstanding its nomenclature, as one filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C., was actually one filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned single Judge was justified in treating and deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is not maintainable. Appeal not maintainable. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the Appeal2. Quashing of the FIR3. Absurdity and Improbability of Allegations4. Delay in Filing the Complaint5. Malafide Intent and Conspiracy6. Fundamental Right to ReputationDetailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the AppealThe primary issue addressed was whether the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, was maintainable. The court noted that the learned single judge had treated the petition as one under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., despite it being styled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the case of *Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate*, which held that the nomenclature of the petition is not relevant and the court can exercise its jurisdiction if it otherwise possesses it. The court concluded that the learned single judge was correct in treating the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and hence, the writ appeal was not maintainable.2. Quashing of the FIRThe appellant sought to quash the FIR registered under Sections 354A and 506 of the IPC, based on the complaint dated 26.8.2014. The appellant argued that the allegations were hearsay, vague, and general, and thus could not be the basis for an FIR. The prosecution, however, contended that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 5.9.2014 provided a foundation for including Section 376 of the IPC. The court referred to the guidelines laid down in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, which allow for quashing an FIR if the allegations do not constitute an offense or are inherently improbable. The court found that the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, did constitute cognizable offenses.3. Absurdity and Improbability of AllegationsThe appellant argued that the allegations of rape were absurd and inherently improbable, citing the prosecutrix's claim of 168 instances of rape over nearly three years. The court noted that it is highly improbable for a victim to voluntarily go to the perpetrator 168 times if they were truly a victim of rape. The court also found it implausible that such acts could occur in the presence of numerous attendants and devotees, given the appellant's status as a Pontiff. The court held that these allegations could not be resolved in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but could be considered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.4. Delay in Filing the ComplaintThe appellant highlighted the significant delay in filing the complaint, which was more than three years after the alleged incidents. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in *Thuly Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu*, which emphasized the importance of prompt reporting in cases of serious crime to prevent embellishment and concoction. The court found that the prosecutrix's explanation for the delay, based on fear of divine wrath, was implausible. However, it held that the delay and its implications could not be conclusively determined in a writ petition.5. Malafide Intent and ConspiracyThe appellant contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated with malafide intent and were part of a conspiracy to tarnish his image. The court noted that the prosecutrix and her husband had prepared for filing the complaint for months, seeking legal and astrological advice. The court referred to *Bhajan Lal's* case, which allows for quashing proceedings manifestly attended with malafide intent. However, the court found that resolving these disputed facts required appreciation of evidence, which was not appropriate in a writ petition.6. Fundamental Right to ReputationThe appellant argued that his fundamental right to reputation was being violated, drawing from the case of *State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani*. The court acknowledged that the right to reputation is a fundamental right but held that the allegations in the FIR were yet to be investigated and could not be quashed at this stage. The court emphasized that the appellant had remedies available after the completion of the investigation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The court emphasized the need for specific averments in petitions to avoid ambiguous situations and refrained from imposing costs on the appellant, considering his status as a man of the Holy Order.