Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the pontiff of Shree Samsthana Gokarna Shree Ramachandrapura Math seeking to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.26533 of 2018. The proceedings arose from a complaint dated 29-08-2015 by the second respondent, which led to FIR No.257/2015 and charge sheet No.06/2018 for offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 363, 342, 323, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, accused No.1, claimed that the math had been targeted through multiple criminal cases and a public interest litigation aimed at destabilizing it. Earlier, in 2010, a case was registered for morphing and creating a fake CD, and subsequent allegations of sexual harassment ended in B reports. A PIL filed against the math was dismissed with costs. In 2014, an extortion complaint was filed by the math. During the same period, a dispute within the math led to Crime No.342/2014, which was closed after a B report. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by one Amshumathi Shastry on 26-08-2014 alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner, resulting in Crime No.219/2014; the charge sheet in that case was challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.550 of 2016. The present complaint was filed about nine years after the alleged incident. The petitioner contended that the inordinate delay vitiated the proceedings, and that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was defective as the final report was filed by a policeman not in charge of the police station, and the cognizance suffered from non-application of mind contrary to Section 204 Cr.P.C. The respondent argued that delay does not vitiate the proceedings, the petitioner must face trial, and that findings in an earlier related writ petition (No.56754/2018) concerning accused No.2 should not be applied to this case. The High Court framed three issues: (i) whether delay vitiates the proceedings, (ii) whether cognizance taken on a report by an unauthorized officer vitiates proceedings, and (iii) whether cognizance and issuance of process lacked application of mind. The judgment text does not contain the final decision or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether there is delay in filing the complaint/registration of the FIR and the said delay would vitiate the entire proceedings? (ii) Whether the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a final report filed by the policeman who was in fact not an officer in-charge of the police station, has vitiated the entire proceedings? (iii) Whether cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the final report and issuance of process suffers from non-application of mind and would be contrary to Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.?
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (03) 5
Writ Petition No.24266 of 2021 (GM - RES)
Sri Manmohan P.N. for petitioner; Sri Thejesh P., High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1; Sri Aravind M. Neglur for respondent No.2
Shreemajjagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Ragaveshwara Bharati Swamiji (formerly known as Sri Harish Sharma)
The State of Karnataka by Girinagara Police Station and CID Special Investigating Agency, Bengaluru and Smt.XXXX
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.26533/2018 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, including the complaint dated 29.08.2015, FIR in Crime No.257/2015, charge sheet No.06/2018 dated 07.09.2018
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the complaint was filed 9 years after the alleged incident without explanation, vitiating the proceedings; and that the cognizance was taken improperly on a final report filed by a policeman not in charge of the police station, and the Magistrate's order lacked application of mind.
Previous Decisions
Related writ petition No.56754 of 2018 was decided by the same Court concerning accused No.2 in the same crime; Criminal Revision Petition No.550 of 2016 was pending in relation to another case against the petitioner. Several earlier cases against the math and its members resulted in B reports or dismissal.
Issues
Whether there is delay in filing the complaint/registration of the FIR and the said delay would vitiate the entire proceedings?
Whether the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a final report filed by the policeman who was in fact not an officer in-charge of the police station, has vitiated the entire proceedings?
Whether cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the final report and issuance of process suffers from non-application of mind and would be contrary to Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the complaint registered 9 years after the alleged incident vitiates entire proceedings due to unexplained delay; and that all issues are answered by this Court in W.P.No.56754 of 2018 regarding accused No.2, with the present facts being stronger.
Respondent argued that delay would not vitiate proceedings; the petitioner is accused No.1 and must face trial; the findings in W.P.No.56754 of 2018 were specifically stated not to apply to any other accused and thus should not be applied to this petitioner; the Court should independently consider this petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/Pontiff of Shree Samsthana Gokarna Shree Ramachandrapura Math (‘Math’ for short) is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.26533 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 363, 342, 323, 506 and 149 of the IPC.
It is his submission that the facts obtaining in the case at hand are stronger than what was projected in the case concerning accused No.2.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed praying to quash proceedings in C.C.No.26533/2018 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, including complaint dated 29.08.2015, FIR in Crime No.257/2015, and charge sheet dated 07.09.2018. The petitioner was accused No.1. Earlier, multiple cases were registered against the math and the petitioner: Crime No.27/2010 for morphing and fake CD; Crime No.47/2014 for extortion; Crime No.342/2014 for various offences, closed with B report; Crime No.219/2014 for sexual harassment, challenged in Criminal Revision Petition No.550/2016. A PIL (W.P.No.36998/2013) was dismissed with costs. Related W.P.No.56754/2018 was decided by the same Court concerning accused No.2. The matter was heard and reserved for orders, and the order was pronounced on 07.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376(2)(f), 363, 342, 323, 506, 149, 120B, 153(a), 295(a), 298, 500, 511, 354A, 153A, 153B, 384, 389, 420, 504, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 204, 482
- Information Technology Act, 2000: 66A, 67
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
