SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5844, 5897, 5900 and 6001 of 2014. Case: Siva Vallabhaneni Vs State of Karnataka. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5844, 5897, 5900 and 6001 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Siva Vallabhaneni Vs State of Karnataka|
|Judges:||Ranjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana, JJ.|
|Issue:||Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 52A, 114, 120B, 201, 212, 295A, 376, 377, 415, 417, 419, 420, 506(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 53A, 173(8), 190, 190(2)|
|Judgement Date:||September 03, 2014|
1. One Nithya Dharmananda @ Lenin filed F.I.R. No. 112 of 2010 on 4/3/2010 at P.S. Central Crime Branch, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable Under Sections 295A, 376, 377, 420, 506(1) r/w. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("the Indian Penal Code") against Nithyananda Swamy @ Tiru Rajashekaran ("A1"), Gopal Reddy Sheelum @ Nithya Bhaktananda ("A2"), Siva Vallabhaneni @ Nithya Sachitananda ("A3"), Dhanashekaran @ Nithya Sadananda ("A4"), Ragini @ Ma Nithya Sachitananda w/o. Siva Sachidananda ("A5") and others. As the incident had occurred in Karnataka, the case was transferred to Karnataka for investigation. On 26/11/2010, Final Report in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 was filed by Bidai Police Under Sections 376, 377, 420, 417, 201, 114, r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code On 4/12/2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara District took cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners. Four criminal petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Karnataka by the Petitioners. Criminal Petition No. 957 of 2011 was filed by A3 praying that order dated 4/12/2010 passed in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 taking cognizance of offences Under Sections 376, 377, 420, 114, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code be set aside and further proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed. Criminal Petition No. 4582 of 2012 was filed by A1 for setting aside order dated 18/6/2012 passed in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 on the application filed by the prosecution Under Section 53A r/w. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") directing A1 to give his blood for test, his voice sample for analysis and subject himself to medical examination. Criminal Petition No. 4090 of 2011 was filed by A4 and A5 and Criminal Petition No. 234 of 2011 was filed by A2 praying for quashing the charge-sheet filed in C.C. No. 204 of 2010 and for setting aside order dated 4/12/2010 taking cognizance of offences Under Sections 376, 377, 420, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 419, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. All the above petitions were disposed of by the Karnataka High Court by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused have filed the present special leave petitions. As these special leave petitions challenge the same order and arise out of the same case, we are disposing them of by this common order.
3. Dealing with the aforesaid criminal petitions filed by the Petitioners, the High Court opined that if at all the statements of the charge-sheet witnesses and other documents are not supporting the charges framed against the accused-Petitioners, they are at liberty to take advantage of the same for seeking their discharge in the pending criminal proceedings.
4. While dismissing the criminal petitions, the High Court directed A1 to cooperate with the investigating officer to get his blood samples drawn from qualified doctors and also to take his voice samples for the purpose of investigation. He was further directed to voluntarily appear before the qualified doctors identified by the investigating officer to subject himself to medical test on the day and date fixed by the said qualified doctors to conduct such test on him as the doctors deem fit pursuant to the order dated 18/6/2012 passed by the trial judge in C.C. No. 204 of 2010. The High Court made it clear that if A1 fails to comply with the said order, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to take A1 into custody for the limited purpose of taking his blood samples, voice test and subjecting him to medical test and shall release him after completion of the tests.
5. The High Court also dismissed the application filed by one Smt. Arathi Rao, a complainant for impleading her in each of the four criminal petitions, observing that the presence of impleading applicant is not necessary at this stage and granted her liberty to make an application before the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 204 of 2010. Finally, the High Court observed:
"While dismissing the aforesaid criminal petitions and impleading application filed by the alleged complainant seeking permission to come on record, this Court observe that the proceeding in C.C. No. 204/2010 is sufficiently old. Though the charge sheet is filed in the year 2010 even after four years, there is no progress and it is still at the stage of prosecution seeking further investigation in to this June, 2012 matter. Hence, this Court direct the Court of CJM, Ramanagara to proceed with the matter without further delay. This Court would...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL