1 Reserved on : 17.01.2025 Pronounced on : 07.02.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15522 OF 2024 (GM - RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.18538 OF 2024 (GM – RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.15522 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI B.S.YEDDYURAPPA S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT NO.381, 6TH CROSS 80 FEET ROAD, RMV II STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALRUU – 560 094. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE) R Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 2 AND: 1. THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING DEPARTMENT (CID) THE SADASHIV NAGAR POLICE SHESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 2. SRI SHAHSHANK SINGH S/O HARERAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.D1181, DLF WESTEND HEIGHTS AKSHAYA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 114. AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.06.2024 ... RESPONDENTS (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR A/W., SRI ASHOK N.NAIK. SPL. PP FOR R1; SRI S.BALAKRISHAN, ADVOVATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD. 14.03.2024 FILED BEFORE THE SADHASHIVNAGAR POLICE, NOW INVESTIGATED BY THE RESPONDENT CID PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-I, BENGALURU (VIDE ANNX- A) AND ETC., 3 IN WRIT PETITION No.18538 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . ARUNA Y. M., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.507, 4TH CROSS SANTHOSH NAGAR PIPELINE ROAD T.DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. 2 . RUDRESHA MARULASIDDIAH S/O MARULASIDDIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.14, SOMAPURA, KENGERI HOBLI VIDYAPEETA POST, BSK 6TH STAGE KENGERI, BENGALURU – 560 060. 3 . MARISWAMY G., S/O GANGADHARAYYA M., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS KAREGUDDADAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU – 560 090. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING DEPARTMENT (CID) CARTLON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUJTOR 4 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENT (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR A/W., SRI ASHOK N.NAIK. SPL. PP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 14.03.2024 IN CR. NO.84/2024 REGISTERED BY THE SADHASHIVNAGAR POLICE NOW INVESTIGATED BY RESPONDENT - CID IN CR. NO.9/2024 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND UNDER SECTION 354(A) OF IPC AND CONSEQUENT ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT - I (VIDE ANNEXURE B) AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER WRIT PETITION NO. 15522 OF 2024 The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024 pending before the Fast Track Special Court-I, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.84 of 5 2024, re-registered as Crime No.9 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 204, 214 r/w 37 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and the consequent action of issuance of summons. 2. The facts, adumbrated, are as follows:- The petitioner, an octogenarian, and former Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, avers to be the most decorated politician, having been in politics for the last 54 years. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint comes to be registered on 14-03-2024 alleging that the complainant along with her daughter who was a minor, visits the petitioner to seek help in respect of a cheating case relating to the trading business and her investments. It is alleged that the complainant spoke for about 9 minutes with regard to the manner in which she was cheated during the said period. At that point in time, both the mother and the daughter drink tea and leave the house after the said conversation. In the interregnum, it is said that the complainant insisted the petitioner to get the complainant’s case investigated by constituting a Special 6 Investigating Team on the ground that she was cheated of several crores. It is then, the complainant alleges that the daughter complained to her that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner taking her inside the room. This is the complaint so registered on 14-03-2024. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.84 of 2024 initially for offences punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354A of the IPC. Thereafter, the investigation is transferred to the Crime Investigation Department which registers a separate crime renumbering the earlier crime to be Crime No.9 of 2024. 3. A notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. is issued upon the petitioner on 28-3-2024, asking his presence before the Investigating Officer, for questioning, in connection with the aforesaid crime. The petitioner is said to have given voice sample later. The petitioner on 10-06-2024 was again called and his statement was recorded. Another notice comes to be issued on 12-06-2024. The petitioner was to be away, from Bangalore and travel to New Delhi on account of his political commitments previously fixed. The Investigating Officer does not heed to the 7 request for postponement of recording of statement of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer would secure a warrant of arrest at the hands of the concerned Court, which then drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court protects the petitioner by directing that no arrest of the petitioner should take place. During the pendency of the subject petition, the CID conducts investigation and files its final report before the concerned Court. The concerned Court registers Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024 by taking cognizance against the petitioner and others for the afore-quoted offences and issues summons to all. Issuance of summons leads the petitioner to file an application seeking amendment of the petition raising a challenge to the entire charge sheet and proceedings before the concerned Court. It is at that stage the matter is heard. 4. Heard Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel/Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 8 SUBMISSIONS: Petitioner’s: 5. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh takes this Court through the complaint at the outset to contend that the first informant was by then a habitual complainant. She has registered 58 cases, against several people, and few cases are registered against her, by several people. This is to buttress his submission that the mother of the victim was a habitual and disgruntled complainant. He would then take this Court through the evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer of the prosecution witnesses who would all support the case of the petitioner, by taking through each one of the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. The learned senior counsel submits that no such thing, as alleged, has ever happened in the case at hand. He would contend that allegations against the petitioner are for political reasons, to arm- twist or wreak vengeance, from the hands of habitual complainant. 5.1. The petitioner only spoke to the mother of the child and on several occasions had told that the victim was like his grand 9 daughter and he has seven grand daughters. He is now 82 years old, not in a position even to switch on lights of his house, as he needs assistance for everything. In this state of affairs, the learned senior counsel submits, how can he put his hand into the shirt of the victim and squeeze her breast, as alleged. He would, therefore, contend that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer of the prosecution witnesses themselves, should be taken note of and entire proceedings should be obliterated. 5.2. It is his emphatic submission that the order of taking cognizance suffers from blatant non-application of mind, as the concerned Court in few irrelevant lines takes cognizance of the offences against all the accused including the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 204, 214 r/w 37 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which cannot even be attributed to the petitioner. He would contend that the order of taking cognizance suffering from want of application of mind should be quashed, like his submission that the entire proceedings should be quashed. He would therefore contend that the proceedings impugned should be quashed lock, stock, and barrel. 10 Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor: 6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the respondent/CID would vehemently contend that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would not quash the proceedings basing its reasons on the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation, be it in favour of the accused or the complainant. It is not the stage at which this Court would consider all these facts. He would submit that the conversation between the mother of the victim and the petitioner, after the alleged incident, is recorded on the mobile phone. This recording was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. It is confirmed that it is the voice of the petitioner, and not morphed. He would, therefore, read the transcript of the conversation to contend that the petitioner has admitted his act by defending that he has only checked her. He would thus contend that it is an open and shut case. It is his contention that, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. 11 6.1. Insofar as the order of cognizance is concerned, the learned senior counsel would submit that when the Court is taking cognizance on a final report by the police, it is not necessary for the Court to record elaborate reasons, at the time of taking of cognizance. It would suffice if it is worded appropriately. The learned senior counsel submits that there can be no warrant of even interference to the order of taking cognizance. He would submit that the petition should be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record. CONSIDERATION: 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The political career of the petitioner is a matter of record and it would not require any reiteration. The complainant and her daughter meet the petitioner at his residence on 02-02-2024. On the said date, it is alleged that the petitioner took the daughter/victim inside the 12 room and indulged in ingredients that would become offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, apart from Section 354A of the IPC. It is the case of the complainant that she comes back, to the house of the petitioner to question him about the manner in which he has behaved with her daughter. After about 40 days of the said incident, the complainant registers the crime. Since the entire issue is triggered from registration of complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint dated 14-03- 2024 reads as follows: “14-03-2024 To The Inspector, Sadashivanagara PS, Bengaluru. From: Ms.Mamatha Singh, D1161, DLF Westend Heights, Akshayanagara, Begur, Bengaluru-560 114, Mob: 9632761281. Sub: Complaint against B.S. Yediyurappa on sexually assaulting a minor rape victim. Respected Sir, On February 2, me (Mamatha Singh) and my daughter, a minor rape victim (Gauri Singh) visited former Chief Minister B.S.Yediyurappa to seek help on my cheating case related to trading business. 13 Mr. Yediyurappa began to listen to my problem keenly on how I got cheated. Me and Mr. Yediyurappa spoke for around 9 minutes and he told his male maids to provide tea. Me and my daughter drank tea while speaking to him. During the nine minutes conversation I also informed that my daughter is a rape victim and then he said he know about her case. This was not the first time me and my daughter met Yediyurappa for support and I have documentary evidence. I beseeched him to investigate my cases by constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) as I was cheated of several crores. Mr. Yediyurappa said he may not be able to support. And all along the conversation he was holding my daughter’s hand. My daughter considers him as grandfather and calls him Thatha and I used to call him Appaji. After about nine minutes he called my daughter to come inside. My daughter listened to him and went. My daughter and Yediyurappa were inside a room for at least 5 minutes. During that time, Mr. Yediyurappa asked about the rape accused and can she still remember his face. Later while talking to my daughter who is a minor rape victim, he slipped his hand inside her shirt and squeezed her right breast. My daughter immediately pushed him away. Then she asked to open the door which was locked by him when he took her inside. Mr. Yediyurappa told her to calm down and slowly opened the door. My daughter came out rushing and weeping. Mr. Yediyurappa on meeting me again told that my daughter is mentally disturbed. As my daughter was crying, I asked her what happened. My daughter said he put his hand inside and squeezed her breast. Angered by this, I confronted Yediyurappa and asked him why you did this. He then said I was just checking her whether she was really raped or not. I asked him how can you do this? Immediately, Mr. Yediyurappa tuned apologetic and offered to help in cheating case. However, when I found my daughter to be emotionally broken I refused the offer. Later, I again confronted Mr. Yediyurappa and demanded an explanation for which he told me not to reveal the incident in an intimidating 14 manner. I went back feeling threatened and did not had the courage to report the mater. However, I now thought over the issue and felt that this is too serious issue to be ignored. Hence, I am approaching you to register my complaint under relevant sections of POCSO and other legal provisions. Regards, Sd/- Mamatha Singh.” (Emphasis added) The complaint is registered before the jurisdictional Police. This becomes a crime in Crime No.84 of 2024. The matter is transferred for investigation to the CID where the crime is renumbered as Crime No.9 of 2024. On 28-03-2024 comes the first notice against the petitioner under Section 41A of the CrPC seeking his presence. The notice reads as follows: ... (41 PÁè¸ï (J) ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ CrAiÀÄ°è ) !"#$ %&' (.:09/2024 : 8 PÉÆìÃ )&*+ , 354(-) . (&/0!$ %&' (.: 84/2024) 1$2) 3 4567 89 :;&$' <!=:$> 8 ? &: 12.04.2024 "&@ $. 0 216, 3 A, C BC-1 56D, .. E5, !"#$ FG 1$2 8H&I)&>!" 8H J&K&! LM&@ .” Voice sample of the petitioner is later taken and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer yet again in the 15 month of June 2024. The petitioner appears on 10-06-2024 and was directed to appear again on 12-06-2024 on which day the petitioner had a previously fixed political engagement and had to travel to New Delhi and in fact flew to New Delhi. But, the Investigating Officer would go before the concerned Court and secures a warrant of arrest under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. Then the petitioner immediately knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court on 14-06-2024 by a detailed order grants an interim order. The order reads as follows: “Submission of learned counsel is accepted and Office Objections in Crl.P.No.5529/2024 are overruled. The case in W.P.No.15522/2024 (GM-RES) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks quashment of proceedings arising from Crime No.84/2024 of Sadashivanagar police station, Bangalore. It alleges offences punishable under section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 354A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner is directed to array Mr.Shashank Singh i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.15639/2024 (GM- RES) as 2nd respondent. Learned Advocate General Mr. Shashikiran Shetty accepts notice for Respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Balakrishnan, learned counsel volunteers to appear for Respondent No.2. 16 The case in Crl.P.No.5529/2024 is filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the same Crime Number. The records reveal that the Police had issued a notice under Section 41A of CR.P.C., on 28.03.2024 for the appearance and accordingly, the Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and thereby, participated in the investigation process. The second notice of the first kind dated 10.06.2024, served on the Petitioner on 11.06.2024, instructed him to appear on 12.06.2024 at 10.30 a.m. for interrogation. Petitioner by his reply dated 11.06.2024 told the police that he would come on 17.06.2024, he having some scheduled meetings at New Delhi. In fact, he flew to New Delhi on the night of 12.06.2024. Therefore, it cannot be said the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.C.V.Nagesh appearing for the petitioner submits that the power to arrest availing u/s 41 having not been exercised and the notice procedure u/s 41A of the Cr.P.C. having been adopted consciously and his client having already participated in the investigation process and further, assuring to participate again on 17.06.2024, the police could not have secured a warrant of arrest u/s 73 on the ground that the custodial investigation is necessary. He draws attention of the court to the material particulars of the case as to the incident of the offence, delay brooked in lodging the FIR, the credentials of the complainant who breathed her last in the recent past on account of cancer and the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner. He also mentions about a plethora of cases filed by the complainant against others and that they are all frivolous as is the case against his client too. Further, he also mentioned about the political vendetta. So arguing, he seeks stay of all further proceedings. Learned Advocate General per contra makes submission that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation process; the police notice dated 10.06.2024 has been violated with no justification whatsoever; even otherwise, custodial interrogation has become imperative; regard being had to seriousness of the offences involved and the political background from which the petitioner hails, no interim relief can 17 be granted to him. Mr.S.Balan appearing for the now added 2nd respondent in the quashment petition, also made similar submission, highlighting the recent demise of complainant and lethargy attributable to the police in the matter of investigation. He also notifies to the court his client‘s W.P.No.15639/2024 wherein, he has sought for arrest and detention of the petitioner and for a direction to accomplish the investigation on a war footing. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time and having perused the Petition papers, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage, no case is made out for halting the ongoing investigation in Crime No.84/2024 and that the petitioner should participate in the same by appearing before the jurisdictional Police on 17.06.2024 as was assured by him. That being said, the petitioner, who is a former Chief Minister of the State for multiple times and who is now an octogenarian, shall not be arrested when he appears before police and cooperates in the investigation process. Very many issues canvassed by both the sides merit deeper examination after the filing of Statement of Objections, for which time as sought for, is granted. Call these matters on 28.06.2024.” Again on 12-07-2024, the coordinate Bench passes the following order: “Learned Addl. SPP seeks a short accommodation. Learned counsel Sri.Balakrishan appearing for the respondent is agreeable with the request. Learned Sr. Advocate sri. C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner vehemently opposes the adjournment contending that the Charge Sheet having been filed, cognizance of the offences has been taken by the court below in Spl.C.C.No.1283/2024 and his client’s personal presence too is being insisted upon on the Monday imminent, i.e., the next hearing date. 18 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having noticed the attending circumstances, the request for the adjournment is accorded and the matter is adjourned to 26.7.2024. The learned judge of the court below is requested to grant exemption from personal appearance of the Petitioner-accused till this matter is taken up by this Court on 26.7.2024.” The interim protection so granted is in subsistence even today. Since the investigation was not stayed, the CID concludes the investigation and files its final report – the charge sheet before the concerned Court. The summary of the charge sheet so filed by the CID reads as follows: “ N& ' N& ' N& ' N& ' : < . < . < . < .-1 OOOO.- - - - P$ P$ P$ P$¥Àà: ? &: 02-02-2024 $ " Q R&$ 11-15 !S .gÁå&$& T U $$, 9 !"V &WX& 17 YZ [&\-2 $$ !"#$ 0!$ &/0!$ %&'& ]&=., [ > 0.381, ^"@> 6 )&1, <_-: 2 A, !"#$ $G < .-1 $$0` a R&, .X&Z&$$ 9 !" (M b <A c7&=;&$ 1$2 , F :;&$!"G &= d@) D7 ) ) +, < ?0 < .-1 $$ .gÁå&$ ? R& &D7&, &W 4 e0 4 e0 4 e0 4 e0 f560` f560` f560` f560` * (Wrist) 9 9 9 9 -D e -D e -D e -D e 8 8 8 8 b) + b) + b) + b) +, 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ < . < . < . < .-1 $$ $$ $$ $$ &W0` &W0` &W0` &W0` “d" d" d" d" & & & &" - - - - J J J J J&g J&g J&g J&g0000 3G 3G 3G 3G F+A F+A F+A F+A [ h& [ h& [ h& [ h& , , , , S 4g S 4g S 4g S 4g !"V !"V !"V !"V F$ F$ F$ F$ d d d d i i i inAU U U U $i $i $i $i ) D ) D ) D ) D J @ J @ J @ J @ &@ &@ &@ &@ L0` L0` L0` L0` j1 j1 j1 j1 &W &W &W &W 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 80 80 80 80 "80` 80` 80` 80` (M (M (M (M k k k k R& R& R& R&AAAA < . < . < . < . l l l l 0. * 0. * 0. * 0. *" - - - - ) &! ) &! ) &! ) &!,,,, &W &W &W &W "Jn Jn Jn Jn 0. 0. 0. 0. " - - - - 02 &> &> &> &> J J J J 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ < . < . < . < .-1 $$ $$ $$ $$ <! <! <! <! 80 80 80 80 -Y6 -Y6 -Y6 -Y6 C C C C - - - - ) &! ) &! ) &! ) &! &W &W &W &W <$ <$ <$ <$ YZ YZ YZ YZ - - - - J "V]&! J "V]&! J "V]&! J "V]&! < . < . < . < .-1 $$ $$ $$ $$ ªÀÄä -D e8 -D e8 -D e8 -D e8 &W &W &W &W &1 &1 &1 &1 d" d" d" d" ) e ) e ) e ) e J&W J&W J&W J&W <) <) <) <) 4 4 4 4 - 0` - 0` - 0` - 0` bW+ bW+ bW+ bW+ o2 o2 o2 o2 &W &W &W &W &4> D &4> D &4> D &4> D 0` 0` 0` 0` -D e8 -D e8 -D e8 -D e8 < . < . < . < .-1 $$ $$ $$ $$ ) e0` ) e0` ) e0` ) e0` p p p p qr qr qr qr $ $ $ $ J @ J @ J @ J @ 8 8 8 8 " &@ &@ &@ &@ 7 s> 7 s> 7 s> 7 s>” - - - - J +> J +> J +> J +> 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ < . < . < . < .-1 $$ $$ $$ $$ 0` 0` 0` 0` 19 eÉÃ©0G+ 0G+ 0G+ 0G+ qr qr qr qr A2 A2 A2 A2 7 7 7 7 &W &W &W &W ) eG ) eG ) eG ) eG F56 F56 F56 F56 J @ J @ J @ J @ t _ t _ t _ t _ M&B M&B M&B M&B 7 7 7 7 J $ J $ J $ J $ J @$7&, J @$7&, J @$7&, J @$7&, . 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ < . < . < . < .-1 $$ $$ $$ $$ ºÁ¯ï £À°è PÀÄ½wzÀÝ ¦gÁåzÀÄ& & & &gÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÄä PÉÃ¹£À°è £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀ®Æ DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ vÀªÀÄä u O8 u O8 u O8 u O8 qr qr qr qr A2 A2 A2 A2 vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. .gÁå&$$ 9 v 4B c)nw0G T=) 3 ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ «rAiÉÆÃ C¥ï¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20-02-2024 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀZÀgÀgÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-2, 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀÄ£ÀªÉÇ°¹, DgÉÆÃ¦-2 gÀªÀgÀ PÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ v 4B SÁvÉ¬ÄAzÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ¸ïÖ ªÀÄrzÀÝ «rAiÉÆÃ ¥sÉÆqÉÆªÀ£ÀÄß C½¸À¸À(r°Ãmï ªÀiÁr¹), £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ L-¥sÉÆÃ£ï£À UÁå®j¬ÄAzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ «rAiÉÆÃ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃªÀ£ÀÄß r°Ãmï ªÀiÁr¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-3 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉÃ½ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ gÀÆ 2 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁV PÀ®A:8 ¥ÉÆÃPÉÆìÃ DPïÖ & 354(J), 204, 214 ¸À»vÀ 37 L¦¹ Cr ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. < . < . < . < .----2 2 2 2 CgÀÄuï ªÉÊ.JA: ¦gÁåzÀÄ&gÀ$ 9 v 4B c)nw 0G T=) 3 4I :* ck M z R& £ÀA$ ? &: 20-02-2024 $ < .-2 $$ < .-1 $$ • ( < .-3 , 4 $ ? .gÁå&$$0` , &W0` WZ c$0` < .-1 $$ ¦gÁå&$$ 0• ¦gÁå&$$ v 4B H&7 s c$ 6 R& :*/S 0` c (w R&). 0$ c$ -†£À &=>s A :* / S 0` w R& 0$ < .-1 $$ < ‡7 < .-3 $$ t s ¦gÁå &$& /1 U $> $. 2 o 0! A20` F < .!ˆ #? [ > T=G a&@X&@ : 204, 214 b 37 . c /Š&AZ c&^] @$7&, . < . < . < . < .----3 3 3 3 $ 1‹ - $ 1‹ - $ 1‹ - $ 1‹ -. . . . M w $"+= M w $"+= M w $"+= M w $"+=:::: ¦gÁåzÀÄ&gÀ$ 9 v 4B c)nw 0G T=) 3 4I :* ck M z R& $ ? &: 20-02-2024 $ < .-1 $$ • ( < .-3 , < .-4 $$ [&\-25 J ‹ $ ? .X&Z&$$ J @, < .-2 $ ? [ > ¦gÁå&$$0` , &W0` WZ c$0` 9 )&>0G < .-1 $$ ¦gÁåzÀÄ&gÀ$ 0• 20 ¦gÁåzÀÄ&gÀ$ v 4B H&7 s c$ 6 R&+ :*/S 0` c (w R&), c$ -†£À &=>s A :*/S 0` w R&D A> 0$ < .-1 $$ < ‡7 ¦gÁåzÀÄ&$& U $> $ 2 o 0! A20` 8 F < .!ˆ #? [ > T=G a&@X&@ : 204, 214 0b 37 . c /Š&AZ c&^] @$7&, . < . < . < . < .----4 4 4 4 f. >[&qi O† M w !&^$= >[&qi O† M w !&^$= >[&qi O† M w !&^$= >[&qi O† M w !&^$= ¦gÁåzÀÄ&gÀ$ 9 v 4B c)nw 0G T=) 3 4I :* ck M z R& $ ? &: 20-02-2024 $ < .-1 $$ • ( < .-4 , < .-3 $$ [&\-25 J ‹ $ ? .X&Z&$$ J @, < .-2 $ ? [ > ¦gÁå&$$0` , &W0` WZ c$0` 9 )&>0G , &W0` WZ c$0` 9 )&>0G < .- 1 $$ .X&Z&$$ 0• .X&Z&$$ v 4B H&7 s c$ 6 R&+ :*/S 0` c (w R&), c$ -†0 &=>s A :*/S 0` w R&D A> 0$ < .-1 $$ < ‡7 < .-3 $$ t s ¦gÁåzÀÄ&$& /1 U $> $. 2 o 0! A20` ) F < .!ˆ #? [ > T=G a&@X&@ : 204, 214 b 37 . c /Š&AZ c&^] @$7&, .” (Emphasis added) On filing of the final report, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and others in the companion petition and registers Spl.C.C.No.1283 of 2024. The order of taking cognizance reads as follows: “04-07-2024 Case called out. Learned Special Public Prosecutor present. 21 Heard and perused the office note and also perused the police report and the documents submitted along with the police report including complaint, FIR, statements of witnesses and the documents. On perusal of police report and documents produced along with police, there are prima facie material placed records so as to proceed against the accused and also to issue process against the accused. Therefore, on being satisfied with prima facie materials placed records, exercising the powers U/s 190(1) (b) r/w Section 193 of CrPC, cognizance is taken for the offences punishable Under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 354(A), 204 and 214 r/w Sec.37 of IPC. Office is directed to register this case as Special C.c. in criminal register. Office to attend regarding compliance U/s 35(1) of POCSO Act i.e., securing statement U/s 164 of CrPC, Medical report, FSL Report, Property from the complainant Police. Issue summons to the accused persons R/by 15-07-2024.” (Emphasis added) The learned Judge notices that he has perused the records and documents and finds that there are prima facie materials against the petitioners in all these cases and registers the case as Special C.C and issues summons. While so ordering, the Court observes that office to attend regarding compliance with Section 35(1) of the 22 POCSO Act, securing statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., medical report, FSL report and property from the complainant police. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through several statements of witnesses to contend that those witnesses whom the prosecution itself has examined, all speak in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, those statements have to be looked into, and the proceedings be obliterated against the petitioner. The statements on which he would seek to place reliance upon are as follows: “ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ E5 E5 E5 E5 ( ( ( (. : 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ )&*+ )&*+ )&*+ , , , , 354(----) . . . . (&/0!$ &/0!$ &/0!$ &/0!$ %&' %&' %&' %&' ( ( ( (. . 84/2024) [&\&$$ [&\&$$ [&\&$$ [&\&$$ J ) J ) J ) J ) :- /1 R&$ r /$2@ O† k /$2@, -J • -18813, 2 8, .-.<_ ) 1, (e$ Zg, (e$ $[ ,, ;&&Kh S , !"#$ 0!$ J& ]& £ÀA.120. 10£ÉÃ ¨ÁèPï, JA.J¸ï.©. ¯ÉÃ£ï, ¹.J.Dgï PÉÃAzÀæ, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀPÀð¯ï ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ;&&Kh S , !"#$ 0!$ H& :ˆ& &40A6, 0$ 6 A) 3> 7&M GB, "&: ŽM G (-9964818386. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-03-2024 ) 1 • > !"#$ 0!$. **** 23 (3D :ˆ&G [&$ ( ]&]&@$7 , 00` ` /.• ‘a& $$ !TbfX&@$7&, . 00 F4’$ !D 3+, ( ! \“)& ( : ]&=! R&D,$7&, . -$D ! & /1±ÁA” 9 $!G ]&=! R&D,$7&, . &0 2007 [&0G ‡• i t ‡• h X&@ +, !"#$ 0!$ ‡• t ) 1 :a&! • >G Z=) 3 $? R&) $7 , . 2007 [&8 !"#$ 0!$ ‡• t ) 1 :a&! • > 2 8G &zZ Z=0` 8Zb,$7 , . 0 &zZ Z=G $ h&½G Z=) 3 8*Ž,+, h&½ c0[&$ <X& ?0 Z=0` 8Zb,$7 , . 00 J& R&0= R&Ž l= 1!ˆ& /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 ^"@>G &zZ Z=) 3 8*Ž+, 2018 [&8 /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 ^"@>G $ h& c0[&$ <X& ?0 Z=0` 8Zb,$7 , . £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02-02-2024 $ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀgÉÃqï ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 ^"@>G &zZ 2 ¥Á Z=PÉÌ ! c R&$ 11-00 !S J&K&@+, R&$ 11-15 !S G l= 1!ˆ& /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D R&$ d£À$!"V J&K>+, c$G d4’ J ! , c$ u 7 c$ !"V /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D 4?+$. <! /1.O.-.P$r $$ !† R&=† < /1 <&^=$> c$0` 7 > d" OD - ) 0. <! /1.<&^=$$ d" ©qÀÄ JAzÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ 09 &zZ –"G+ ¥ÀÄ,G 89 J $0` &l 8ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ «¼Á¸ÀªÉÃ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ) 0. <! < J ! 00` J $ /(!Q? 4? + JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ G d - 4 ) D < A!0 , c$ !"V d"!t ©56$7 , . 0$ R&$ 20 8iY!" 0$ < J ! , c$ !"V J $!t J $. ¥ÀÄ0— R&$ 20 8iY 0$ J $!t 4$ 7 , d" J ! -$ <! &0 /1.<&^=$> c$0` 7 > d" OD - ) 0. <! /1.<&^=$$ d" OD -$ &0 c$!"0` d" OS 60. 0$ R&$ 10-15 8iY!"G J $!t J $. < < J ! , c$ !"V d"!t 24 J &! d" ˜ &s -4 00 ,$?G. c$ J $!t 4&! A 00` u 7 ˜00` R& &$?G. 0$ ? &:20/02/2024 $ Q 08-00 !S s &1 08-00 !S ªÀ A! Z=G &zZ Z= 8Zb$7 , . &0 Z= 8Zb,$]& Q ™&=A` 2 !S 0$ &KW =W,X& /1.$ 1‹ $$ , >[&qi $$ !ˆ #? $ 1‹ $$ )&>0G ? &: 02-02-2024 $ /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D 4?+ -0` J ! , c$ !"V 4?++ &0 < J !0` /1.O.-.P$r '$$ d" OD t ?+ <! /1.$ 1‹ $$ d" OD7 J +> /1.$ 1‹ $$ , >[&qi $$!ˆ #? d"!t O6+ c$!"V ) "@0 [ _ H&$ J @$7&, . R&$ c^Z !S 0$ /1.$ 1‹ , >[&qi $$!ˆ #? -0` J ! , c$ !"V J $!t 4?+, /1.$ 1‹ $$ 09 )&>0G F$0` ) D J ! - c$ t š_| J $. c$7 t š_ c$!"0` )&>0G >) D J $!t J $ $ 1‹$$ 0— d" J $. < F,L0 ?0!"G R&^=!"G 1[&]&!,$ :Y? ?+ -0` J ! , c$ !"V /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D ^"@> 4&! /1.O.-.P$r $$ c0L]&@ Z&+ $ 8$0` ) $7 , . '< &0 /1.O.-.P$r $$ w 4 &zZ Z= 8Zb,+> d" ˜0 0t s -4 4 Q 00 ,$?G. ›? DM&@ >s . !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ 8 8 8 8 E5 E5 E5 E5 ( ( ( (. . 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ )&*+ )&*+ )&*+ , , , , 354(----) ¦¹ (&/0!$ &/0!$ &/0!$ &/0!$ %&' %&' %&' %&' ( ( ( (. : 84/2024) J ) J ) J ) J ) :- /1 R&$ r /$2@ O† r /$2@, -J •-18813, 2 8, .-.<_ ) 1, (e$ Zg, (e$ $[ ,, ;&&Kh S , !"#$ 0!$. J&° ]& 0.120, 10 &GB, -.-.O M †, .-.<_ ) 1, (e$ 25 Zg, (e$ $[ ,, ;&&Kh S , !"#$ 0!$. H& :ˆ& &40A6, 0$ 6, A) 3> 7&M GB, "&: ŽM G, (-9964818386, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24-06-2024 ) 1 • > !"#$ 0!$ (3D :ˆ&G [&$ ( ]&]&@$7 , . 00` ` / • ‘a& $$ !TbfX&@$7&, . 00 F4’$ !D 3+, ( ! \“)& ( : ]&=! R&D,$7&, . -$D ! & /1•&” 9 $!G ]&=! R&D,$7&, . &0 2007 [&0G ‡• i t ‡• h X&@ +, !"#$ 0!$ ‡• t ) 1 :a&! • >G Z=) 3 $? R&) $7 , . 2007 [&8 !"#$ 0!$ ‡• t ) 1 :a&! • > 2 ' 8G &zZ Z=0` 8Zb,$7 , . 0 &zZ Z=G $ h&G Z=) 3 8*Ž,+, h& c0[&$ <X& ?0 Z=0` 8Zb,$7 , .' 00 J& R&0= R&Ž l= 1!ˆ& /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 ^"@>G &zZ Z=) 3 8*Ž+. 2018 [&8 /1.O.-.AiÀÄÆ$r $$ 8]&]& t&Z )&M 8 ^"@>G $ h&ˆ c0[&$ <X& ?0 Z=0` 8Zb,$7 , . &0 ? & 02-02-2024 $ &0 h z @) D /1 O. - P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 ^"@>G &zZ 2 h&½ Z= ¨ÉÃUÀ£É c R&$ 11-00 !S J&K&@+, R&$ 11-15 !S ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæ!ˆ& /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D -?07 ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ [&J 4$ X& 4$ & d" OD L]&@ c$!" J $0` 4 ) "Vp7 ,] , J $0` 0? DM c$!"0` [&J 4$ d" OD7 ,] . ? &: 02.02.2024 $ 11.15 !S /1 U J&! c$ !"0` O - P$r$$ d" J $. 0$ /]&0 !D$$$ 4?+ c$0` O - P$r$$ d" 11.35 "Vb) 6$7 , . & Z= 8Zb –"G X& !X&$ F$?G 26 J&&@ & :f5_ 4B0G 0` 0?]&! 09 ) e0G$ ]&•0` 0` 0?7 ,] . (3D U$$ © - P$r$ (M 1$20` &l$ :Y 0$ 00` Redmi ( eg œ† 0G < :Ž5_ >K6_ 4B 0 ) ¥ÀÄ5!" œS c0` 7 ) $7 , . 00` ( eg œ†c0` 8H J&K$7 , . ›? DM&@ >s . !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ E5 E5 E5 E5 ( ( ( (. : 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ )&*+ )&*+ )&*+ , , , , 354(----) . . . . (&/0!$ &/0!$ &/0!$ &/0!$ %&' %&' %&' %&' ( ( ( (. : 84/2024) [&\™&$$ [&\™&$$ [&\™&$$ [&\™&$$ J ) J ) J ) J ) :- /1 <0&&^= ) .., O† M w 56 2)&&^=, 48 YZ, -J • 797, -<_ ) 1, (e$ $[ ,, !"#$, ]&: 0.9, c1( $ M •w, /1^_!Dž $[ ,, ) h&"=, ) > !"#$-560060 ( eg 0: 9844732583. q Ÿ$ 0$, J $"!G c; 0$ 7&G &0!$ ŽM G.. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.03.2024 , !"#$. &0 (3D :ˆ&G ˆ 7. YZ! 00` q G 54 ( ]&]&@$7 , . 00 K & <&^= -4 d4’ !+ FŽ>U 3 [ i6_0G ' ]&=! R&D,$7&,ˆ . 00` ` • ‘a& Ž.F. H&@ •&M G •_ <@ ) R&D,$7&, . 09 8^0&@+, 09 7&s 09 u 7 G* ]&]&@$7&, . &0 1997 [&0G FM&H G -<_ )&†CS 4g <@ +, 00` 4 &? $ @ 0$ -<_ ,$ E5G 10 YZ!" ' )& Z= 8Zb$7 , . 0$ -<_ ) 1G 5 YZ!" )& Z= 8Zb$7 , . 2012 [&8 2019 [&0 O- --¡ & :Ž†C 0G Z= 8Zb$7 , . 2019 [&8 -<_ ) 1G Z= 8Zb,$]& Q R&0= l=1!" • >s 00`0` c?0 l= 1!ˆ& O.-. P$r $$ !†R&=† <@ R&) "p 27 <,$ • > 1 4 ?+ c$ ( <,$ • >s -<_ ) 1) 3 < ‡ 1 $]&8) +$ ( 00`0` R&0= ., -<_) 1 [&J 4$ Z= h&wZ ¤Ãr c?0 l=1!ˆ& P$r $$ 4 Z=) 3 $? R&) "p "Vb) 6+ c?8 F?0 R&0= O.-. P$¥Àà $$ 4 !† R&=† <@ Z= 8Zb,$7 , . &0 ? &: ? &:25-03-2024 $ E5 :• Y :;&$'& :a&! h&Io& /1. T¢£ -.u $$ 00 :;&$' J&K&! 00 c0` 8+' c$7 &0 ?0 • > :• Y :;&$'& «¨sÁUÀzÀ gÀÆA £ÀA.115 $G 8H&I)&>!" J&K&@+, 8H&I)&>!"V PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E5 (.: 09/2024 8 PÉÆì )&*+ , 354(J) L¦¹ ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA:84/2024 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ) "D7 8D,$7 , . [&R&0=]&@ [&J 4$ !† R&=† Z=) 3 3 K0 ]&@+ h& (M Z= 8Zb7 ,] . c$7 00 ? &: 02.02.2024 $ $ Q 08-00 !S s &1 08-00 !S A! Z= ]&@+, &0 c$7 P$r [&J 4$ G Z=G&+! P$r [&J 4$ " Q R&$ 11-15 !S G @) D J $!t 4?$7&, . < G 7& U , c$ !"V c$ u 7 G 1Z$ E c^=o& /]&0 !D_ -4$ w0 8+$. <! P$¥Àà [&J 4$ <; 4 c$0` &zZ c$0` d" "Vb) - J J&g0G ) D$. <! U. cªÀ$ !"V , /]&0 !D_ $$ 4 J&g0G ) D$. U $$ 0` !" c7&=;&$ ) UÉ 4I7 ˆ 9 YZ! cM &D,$7 , . F0` &= W3G. J&! S 1U 4^7 5 [&:$ ) A2 4$ ) J "V) "Vp,+$. <! [&J 4$ g R& 3 K03 $ J $. <! [&J 4$ G cD J&& ¤ -4$ 3 7& U , c$ !"V , /]&0 !D_$> 8$. &0 < G &@ 4 8 +0. ) 56 ¤ d"!t ¸ÉÖÃ_ ) A,4$ J&g0 &@G 8+0. c G$ nÃ ,$]&! U $$ 9 ) !" :;&$ R& &D,+ <! [&J 4$ U $> 89 [ =! c 0 ,8 28 00` ) eM& 1` R&,8 - J U , c$ !"0` J $!t "Vb$. <(M /]&0 !D_ $$ X& <J&q0 1) ) D 4?+ c$ R&$ 10-15 8iY [&J 4$ u 7 R& & J $!t J $. /]&0 !D$ $$ J $!t J !,$]& Q :$• e J& a& lD& $/= $$ , c$ u 7 4 K0 d"!t 4$. c$ R&$ 15-20 8iY R& &D,$]&! U $$ 7 , !" u 7 4 00 7 ,(9 [&J 4$0` a R&D ) ) $. c) 3 &0 d [&> R& (M 7 , OD?G [&J 4$0` ) J "V7 , J $!t Fj - J "Vb 0. 0$ [&J 4> U , !"V 90` a R&D 7 , 4?&+ - J &! [&J 4$ <, "Vb - J $. <! $/= , c$ u 7 F+ 4 K0$ J $!t 4$. <! U , !"V d" 4 [&J 4$ 4 ˜$ ^£8G R& &D,+$. <! &0 ¸Àé®à ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÆªÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄEzÀÝ ºÁUÉ ZÉ£ÁßV N¢¸ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ R&D7 , J "V,+$. <! U 00` ) ! ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖAvÉ J¸ïLn <! ) A¥ R& ) "V,+$. <! [&J 4$ 00 .) .²ªÀPÀÄªÀÄgï gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï p - J $. <! &0 .) . /R&_ $$ !†R&=† ' ¥ÉÆ† R& c$ † >¦ R&DG. 7 , [&J 4$ 00 iY0_ ¥ÉÆÃ† - J +, &0 iY0gï [&J 4> 00` 04_8 † R& iY0_ [&J 4$ † >¦ R& (M P$r [&J 4> † ) S 60. P$r [&J 4$ iY0_ $> 80G J 2§ !"V , c$ !"V 4$7&, c$ Ž † ) c> qr J& R& &0 [&R&0=]&@ X&>! œ† R&' J "M&G F> J& R& - J † w R& 00 ) 56$. <! P$r [&J 4$ U $> iY_ <¨ J @ X&0© $$0` a R& ˜ &s - † R& J c J $. <! 7& U 89 † 04_ ) - ) $. <! [&J 4$ 00 † 04_ ) D - J + &0 [&J 4$ 7348998962 œ† 04_0` ) S 60. <! U $$ † 04_ 4 ) D 89 J $ <&^=0 c ) $. <! &0 ) 6 04_ † R& -N 6 J 0. <! c$ !ˆ #? ]& J $. < †0` h& Z=G$ 4’?!ˆ& & 3 K0$ *@7 ,] . 29 0$ ? &: 05.02.2024 $ A 00 Q 08-00 !S s &1 08- 00 !S A! Z= ]&@+, &0 c$7 P$r $$ G Z=G&+! ™&=A` R&$ 12-00 !S U, c$ !"V c$ u 7 d4’ =W, 4$. < ?0 'iU F. K0 u&, F+> c$ ) "!qÉ AG ,+$. iU @ (M [&J 4$0` R&D 4?+ [&ZK8$0` d"!t ?+, R&$ 12-50 > 1-00 !S d" U c$ !"V J&! F `4’ =W, d" 4 [&J 4$ A,$ R&$ d 8iY R& &$. <! &0 &@ 4* 8 +0. 0$ [&J 4$ 00 S c> 09 u 7 œS 7 S 7 @ - J +, U $$ c$ ( eg0` 00` ) e ) 56$. &0 [&J 4$ u 7 F+ U c$ !"V J&! c$ u 7 F+ F `4’0` [ > S 7 ( eg0` ]& U $> ) S 60. 0$ c G$ ]& J @$7&, . ? &: 17.02.2024 $ 00` D= F$G < ?0 $:1† -4$ [&J 4$ !† R&=† <@ A! Z= 8Zb+$. ›? DM&@ >s .” The said witness is also questioned in a questionnaire format. Those questions and answers read as follows: “ 1•&`!"V 1•&`!"V 1•&`!"V 1•&`!"V 1. 89 J $ C, 89 :ˆ&, ( eg 04_ , 89 W$ >• R&) p? c0&$^= ) ... 48 YZ, 0.9, c1( PÀÄnÃ$A 4t&' /1^$!Dž A,$, ) h&"=, ) >, !"#$ – 560 060 9844732583, &0 AHC <@ )&Z> [ ] G$vÉÛÃ . 2. 8 X& =!G¢ÝÃ>? -Y6 YZ! =!G¢ÝÃj? &0 FM&H G AHC <@ =!G$7 . R&$ 27 YZ! =!G$7 , . 30 3. ? &: 02.02.2024 $ 8 Z=G F?+&? ? & 02.02.2024 $ £Áä0= /1 O.-.P$r0$ !† R&=† <@ A!®Ä Z= 8Zb,zÉÝ. 4. < ?0 .gÁå&$& U , c$ !"V /1 © -. P$r$$ 4?+gÁ? R&$ -Y6 !S 4?+$? ? &:02.02.2024 $ vÁU , c$ !"V /1 B.S. P$r0$ R&$ 11.15 $ 0$ 4 J $ )&+, /]&0zï !D$ $$ A [&J 4$0` R&D c$ 3G 8 )&,+$. 5. vÀUï$$ , c 6 4 $ X&$ X&$ -G -G ) D$ :>? 7&¹AUï , c$ !" u 7 /]&0zï !D$ gÀ$ A <12 1) 8D 4?+$. $ K0 0 4s u 7 G* 4 J&g 0G [&J 4$$ ) "Vp l= <0 3G $ K0 ) "Vp [ v& (M [&J 4$ 3) 3 7&¹AUï, ªÀÄªÀÄvÁ¹AUï 3) 3 7&Uï$$ !"V, c$ ªÀÄUÀ¼À 3) 3 /]&0 !Dgï$$ ) D$. 6. c$ 4&! G X&&$ F+&? c$ 4&! G cD & &!&K, c87& , J ‹ , J&& A0, ¤, 8]&ZA& 1?k $$, &zZ R&$, F G$ F+gÀÄ. 7. c 6 X&&$ 4?+&? c$ >• ¤ªÀÄUÉ F X&? 7&U , c$ !"V 4 G* /]&0zï !qÀÆgï$$ A 4 )&,+$, 0$ $ u 7 G* J&g 4 ) D$ /]&0zï !qÀÆgï$$ )&Z8$ 1Z$ E c^=o X&&$ <12 1) !"0` ) D 4&! + . 8. < G /1 © - P$r$$ 4’?!"V -G+$? 31 < G J& ¤ J&g J ?) $ h&=[ ¤ 0 ºÁ¯ï£À &@0G 8+. &!&K, c87&, J ‹ cD ) R&D,+$. A0 :•&1 t [ M&G_ 0G+ 8]&ZA& 1?k $$ 8ZA' b `M G ) ' ! ›t&D,+$. &zZ R&$ w 4 F+$. &0 [&J 4$ J&0G + D0) 3 2§"7 $G 8 +. 9. 7&U , c$ !"V /1 O - P$r$$ 4&! c$ œS 7 ) DgÁ, c 6 4 X&&$ œS 7 ) D&? œS 7 ( eg , 0. X&? 02.02.2024 $ 7&U , c$ !"V 8 ( eg 0G 7&s !¼ÀÄ [&J 4$ u 7 87&! œS 7 ) 6$7 , . 0$ !qÀÆgï $$ <12 1) 0` [&J 4jUÉ ) D]&! œS 7 ?$7 , . F& 0$ 7&U , c$ !"V 7 , 05.02.2024$G &0 A! Z=G&+! d4’ =W, u 7 4?+ c$ J $D G [&J 4> œS ) :0&! [&J 4$ œS 7 7 @ -$ <! 7& U , c$ !"V c$ u 7 4?+ =W,. $ K0 [&J 4$ u 7 8 œS 0` 7 ?$7 , 02.02.24 $ R&$ 11:20 jAzÀ 12:30 gÀ M¼ÀUÉ 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 12:45 > 1:30 d" F$4A.” 10. Uï$$ !"V J&0G c®èzÉÃ X&&$ ) uÉ c«]& $ªÀiï UÉ < ?0 X& 6&$ J @+gÁ? 7&U , c$ !"V w 0 4s J&g 4 [&J 4$ 4 R& & J $ J ! ! /]&0© !qÀÆgï$$ A u 7 G+gÀÄ. $ K0$ 4 J ! ! 00` tÚ¼ÀvÉG* F+$. $ K0 J&¯ï ©lÄÖ X& ) ' ! J @$?G c ?0 7 ,(9 7&U , c$ !"V 4&! A [&J 4$0` J&¯ï£À°è* a R& R& &) D J @$7&, . 2 &> 4&! A 7&s, !"V F4’$ 00` 2§"7 $G* F+$. 32 11. 8 U , c$ !"V /1 O.-. P$r$$ 4 J ! ! 8 -G?+>? c$ R& &D0` 8 ?+&? ? & 02.02.2024 $ 7&U , c$ !"V ( &> 4&! /]&0© !qÀÆgïgÀ$ u 7 G 4?$7&, 2£ÉÃ ¨Áj c ?0 4&! 7&s !"N 6 4?$7&, . -$qÀÆ jZ!"G &0 [&J 4$ , 7&s, !"V , /]&0© !D_ F G$ tÚ¼ÀvÉ $G FzÉÝ0. c$ R& &D crY6]&@ ) ,zÀÄÝ 7&U $$ !" (M c$ 4I c7&=;&$ R& 4 Q , S 1U 5000 ) A2 4$ 4 Q R& &D7&, SIT ) ) "V7&, 00` !" >– 00` !"0` ,$ ? - J "V,+$ 00 9 YZ! &= ¹PÀÌ®è J®ègÀ &@ cM , + , )& 00` !" «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ; B R&) p - J "V,+$. [&J 4$ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀPÉÌ ¤0` !"V 00` (9!"V F+J& ; &`@ ›? ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É - J +0` ) ) + .” 12. U , c$ !"V 7 , ˜ &$ c ?0 /1 O - P$r$$ 4zÉÆÝzÀ&? R&$ -Y6 c$ cG F+$? c$ <! R& &$ 8 ? X&? < G 8 -G F?+>? 7&U , c$ !"V c ?0 2 &> 4?+$ ( &> 4&! 00` !"0` c &=]&@ - ˆ 9 YZ! -G$ &@ cM , + &= W3G )& ; B R&) p - J "V,+$. F$ 2 &> 4&! 7 , S 1U :Y R& &D - J $. <! [&J 4$0` ) J&¯ï "Vb) mÉÖ. (M J b `M G [&J 4$, 80` !"V 00` (9!"V F+ J& ; &`@ ›? J& R&D7 , . - J $ A SIT - A¥ R&D,+$ <! [&J 4$ /1 ) /R&_ R&D J $ c$ !† R&=† R& c$ q>G, 0$ iY0_ $> gÉ R&D J R& ) S 6 [&J 4$ 09 /)&>$$ )&080G J& R& - ) >$, 2 &> 4&! R&$ 15 33 8iY R& &) D J $ G &0 7&U c$ !"V , [&J 4$$ 2§"7 $G F +0. 13. 7&U , c$ !"V R&$ -Y6 !S /1 O - P$r$$ s J $5$? c$ J 0$ X&&$ c$ 4?+&? 02.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ 7&U , c$ !"V 2£ÉÃ &> 4 J $S&! R&$ 12:30 !S <@$4AzÀÄ. c$ J 0$ c$ 2 &> 4?&+!M 4?+ t&ll 8$¤ $$ J&¯ïUÉ J ?) + h&=[ Ž0G +$ F$ J 0$ t&ll 8$¤ $$ [&J 4> Fu o† ) 56$ [&J 4> 82 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀi¸ÁìVzÀÄÝ Q« >X&@ ) ?G ) e!"V & 0D!,] B.P.. ¸ÀÄ!_ F7&=? SÁsM !&@ 3 J , R&7 1 Fu o£ï!"0` vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛgÉ EzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ªÁgÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ E£ï¸ÀÄ°£ï EAeÉPÀë£ï £À£ÀÄß t&6_ gÀªÀgÉÃ 4 ) D7&, . DUÉÎ < ªÁ$ Fu o00` t&ll 8$¤ $$ 4 ) 56 J $. & 4 ?$7 , ¸À»/- “ One Sri J.S.Manoj, CW-13 tenders his statement on 25-03-2024 and was also questioned by the Investigating Officer. The statement tendered and the questions so asked read as follows: !"#$ E5 ( !"#$ E5 ( !"#$ E5 ( !"#$ E5 (.... : : : : 09 09 09 09////2024 2024 2024 2024 8 8 8 8 ¥ÉÆPÉÆìÃ )&*+ , )&*+ , )&*+ , )&*+ , 354 354 354 354((((----) ) ) ) . . . . ((((&/0!$ %&f ( &/0!$ %&f ( &/0!$ %&f ( &/0!$ %&f (.... : 84/2024) : 84/2024) : 84/2024) : 84/2024) [&\&$$ J ) :- /1. ¤.u .-. O† /‡_. u .-†. eÁ-d3!, /1.O.-.P$r, R&Ž l= 1!"V, $$ 8]& ) , ) &¡ /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&, 0.381 ^"@>, 6 cDž$[ ,, 80 c $[ ,, <_.-.: 2 A, t&gïì )&M 8. !"#$ 0!$, H&, Ž `0Ap, b>[&] J 4, •0`&0562 7&M GB, J&0 f¯Éè, ªÉÆ -7349504930. ? &: 25-03-2024 !"#$ 0!$ ***** 34 8H&I)&>!"V :;&$' J&K&!7 8 0 ( ?0 :;&$' J&K&@$7 , . &0 (3D :ˆ&G J& R&0= R&Ž l= 1!ˆ& /1.O.-†.P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 "@>G cD ) J& &@ ) R&) D cG* ]& R&) $7 , . &0 00` 7&s d4’ ! &@+, 00` 7&s$!"V 00` q Ÿ>0G ]& R&) $7&, . &0 2020 [&0G &Z5 c?0 l= 1!ˆ&@+ /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&]& t&gïì )&M 8 ^"@>G S 5g ˜u 8C H&$ ) 3 [ >) $7 , . /1.O.-.P$r l= 1!" A +s ) " F 0$ S 5g ˜u 8C )&=† g <@$, . < 0$ &0 cG >•? 0` >$7 , . /1.O.-.P$r $$ 8]&]&G 0 Q 6 > ™&=A` 2 J&! u 5 > &1 10 !S -$D h& ) :$, . /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D 4$ !2=$, [&ZK8$ F =W,! c$ G )&¨ J&! !"0` ) D ) R&D,$7 , . cG /1.O.-.P$r $$ 1 ?0 , )&¨, mÁå4M w, Ÿ5 e0?0 ?0•>!"0` ) "Vp,$7 , . /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D ? & R&$ K0!"V 4$,$7&, . ? &: 02-02-2024 $ &0 e0?0 Z=) 3 J&K&@+0. " Q R&$ 10-45 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è /1.O.-.P$r $$ $8 t e8U S 4g 4$ <! &0 CªÀjUÉ wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. /1.O.-.P$r $$ R& J&g 0G PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß PÉ®¸À0` R&D,+ qr G g R&$ <! &0 J&g J @ &! cG $ K0 6 F+$ c$G 1 !D 1 J ! F `4’ AD@ F+$ c$!"V [ v& (M ) +$. <! R&$ 11-30 > 11-45 !S ]&@, <! /1.O.-.P$r $$ 00 F> 7 ) D & -$ &0 <s - $ K0) 3 7 ) D J @ ) S 60. c$!"V R&$ c^Z!S $:! R& &D,+$ c$!"V -+ J 0$ &0 'r!"0` 7 ) D J @ Pï0G 7 ˆ FS 60. X&&$ :5gïì 4&! Dž$ )&¨ ) D - &0 c«]& A0 X&&$ d4’$ 4 :5gïì 35 c«]& )&¨ ) D7 ,] . FG]& & d"!t t e8U S 4g J&g 0G ) $7 ,] . Dž$ J " J $ c$ R& &D –") 3 &!"V J !?G. c$7 ? &: 05.02.2024 $ & & K0 :5gïì )&¨ ) 6+ 7& U , c$ !"V 4 4 Q 0 ,$?G J&! F> & < ?0 X& )&¨ 8$?G. ? &: 17.02.2024 $ &0 Q R&$ 10-00 !S /1 P$r [&J 4$ !ˆ& &9 (D $$ ]&:$ F t&gïì )&M 8 ] eY§: [&–0 a&! ] eY§: [ rD_ ch&wZ (w J @+ c$ J + ) !"0` R&) D cM G F+ ™&=A` cG* Ÿ5 R&) D 0$ R&$ 3-00 !S ]& P$r [&J 4$ 4 [ G_ 0G$ 6 $0G :•&1 t ) D0. 0$ u R&$ 5-00 !S ) ) 3 J 0. < ?0 > 7& U , c$ !"V $$!"V 4?$ 4 Q 00 ,$?G. ? &: 02.02.2024 $ [&J 4$ 4&! c> ) 56+ O56 0$ c$0` [&J 4$ G &0 $?G. DzÀgÉ F,L0 ?0!"G R&^=!"G 1[&]&!,$ :Y? ?+ -0` J !¸ÀÄ , c$ !"V /1.O.-.P$r $$0` a R&D ^"@> 4&! /1.O.-.P$r $$ c0L]&@ Z& $ 8$0` ) $7 , . < &0 /1.O.-.P$r $$ -0` J ! , c$ !"V 4&! c$!"V ˜0 R& &$ cG ˜0 E5 0t s -4$ 4 Q 00 ,$?G. ›? DM&@ >s . ¥Àæ±ÁßªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ 1. ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì, ¤ªÀÄä «¼Á¸À, ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï w½¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÄä QgÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ½î? ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï eÉ.J¸ï; 21 ªÀµÀð, f£ÉßÃ£ÀºÀ½î, »j¸ÁªÉ ºÉÆÃ§½, ZÀ£ÀgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ f¯Éè ºÁ¸À£À 7349504930 £ÀªÀÄä PÉ®¸À nÃ PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ & Hl ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁºÉÃ§jUÉ ªÀiÁvÉæ PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ & EUÉ §AzÀªÀjUÉ nÃ PÁ¦ü & ¹éÃmï PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ »ÃUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. 2. ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è¢ÝÃj? JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ F GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è¢ÝÃj? £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÁV PÀ¼ÉzÀ 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. 3. ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è E¢ÝÃgÁ? 36 ºËzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è EzÉÝ. 4. D ¢£À ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ UÀAmÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ? ºËzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï & CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 11.15gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ §A¢ÝzÀgÀÄ. 5. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÉÆnÖUÉ §AzÀ G½zÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ J°è J°è PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ «ªÀj¹? ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ MAn D¸À£ÀzÀ ¥ÀPÀÌ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À PÀÄ½vÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ zÉÆqÀØ ¸Áé¥À EzÀÄÝ, D zÉÆqÀØ ¸Áé¥ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ¥ÀPÀÌPÉ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌPÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀPÀÌPÉÌ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ PÀÄ½vÀÄ PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. 6. CªÀgÀ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝgÁ? CªÀgÀÄ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ C¤ÃvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀgÁeï ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§â CqÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀÄºÉÃ±ï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæ¢Ã¥ï, ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀÄ, UÁqïð ªÀiÁgÀÄw, UÀ£ïªÉÄ£ï DgÁzsÁå EµÀÄÖ d£À ¸ÀºÀ EzÉÝªÀÅ. 7. CªÀgÉÆnÖUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? CªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ EzÉAiÀiÁ? ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ ¹AUï CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ²ªÀ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÝÀgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è EªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀzÉÃ ¥ÀzÉÃ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÀt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀzÉ ¥ÀzÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÀvÀð ¸ÀAWÀzÀ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß --- --£É£À¦zÀ 8. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ CAUÀ gÀPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½zÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ J°èzÀÝgÀÄ? UÁqïÀð ªÀiÁgÀÄwAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ MgÀUÉ UÉÃmï §½ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, UÁ£ï ªÉÄ£ï DgÁzsÀågÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉUÉ PÁtÄªÀAvÉ ¤AwgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ nÃ PÉÆlÄÖ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ, ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è nÃ PÀ¥ï vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä C°èAiÉÄÃ ¤AwzÉÝ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ nÃ PÀ¥ï vÉUÉzÉ, £ÁUÀgÁeï & C¤ÃvÀ CqÀÄUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝgÀÄ, ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀÄ gÉ¸ïÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄªÁVvÀÄÛ ºÁUÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è gÉ¸ïÖ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄzsÀå MªÉÆäªÉÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀÄ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ wAzÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄrzÀÄ --- 37 9. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ¥Á¤ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝÃgÁ? CAzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¯ï £À°è PÀÄ½wÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ ¨É¯ï ªÀiÁrØzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀ£Éß¯Áè £ÉÆÃrzÉ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ J®èjUÀÆ nÃ PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ CzÀgÀAvÉ nÃ vÀAzÀÄ ºÁ°£À°è PÀÄ½zÀÝ CªÀgÉ®èjUÀÆ PÉÆmÉÖ nÃ PÀ¥ï vÉUÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉUÉ PÁtÄªÀAvÉ ¤AvÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ nÃ PÀÄrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ nÃ PÀ¥ï vÉUÉzÉ. 10. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ°£À°è C®èzÉÃ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ PÉÆÃuÉUÉ CxÀªÁ gÀÆªÀiïUÉ D ¢£À AiÀiÁgÉÆnÖUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÁ? ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¢£À ºÁ¯ï ©lÖgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ PÉÆÃuÉUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ºÁ¯ï£À°è §AzÀÄ PÀÄ½vÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉ zÀÆgÀzÀ°è EzÀÄÝ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É F ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ºÁ¯ï ©lÄÖ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÉÆÃuÉUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÁºÉÃ§jUÉ 82 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÁìVzÀÄÝ CªÀjUÉ PÉÊUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀÄA§ £ÀqÀÄUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CªÀjUÉ ¯ÉÊmï & ¥Áå£ï ¹éZïUÀ¼ÀÄ qÁ¤AUï ºÁ¯ï CxÀªÁ E£ÁßªÀÅzÉÃ eÁUÀPÉÌ, PÉÆÃuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆzÀ¯É PÀgÉzÀÄ ¯ÉÊmï & ¥sÁå£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛgÉ, D ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÉÆÃuÉAiÀÄ, «ÄÃnAUï ºÁ¯ï qÉÊ¤AUï ºÁ¯ï ¯ÉÊmï ¥sÁå£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀ®Ä ºÉÃ½gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÁìzÀjAzÀ CAUÀgÀPÀëPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ PÉÆÃuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÆ CªÀgÀ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, »ÃUÁV D ¢£À ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï or CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÁßUÀ° ºÁ¯ï ©lÄÖ E£ÁåªÀ PÉÆÃuÉUÀÆ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è, CAzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁ¯ï£À°èAiÉÄÃ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. 11. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¤ÃªÀÅ J°è¢ÝÃj? CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÆÃr¢ÝÃgÁ? ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D ¢£À §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ CªÀgÀ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ EzÉ. ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ ¨É¯ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÀÉÆÃzÁUÀ J®èjUÀÆ nÃ vÀgÀ®Ä w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ nÃ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è ¤AwzÉÝ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ nÃ PÀ¥ïàUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ E£ï«mÉÃµÀ£ï PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀqÀ®Ä ¤AvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀgÀªÀÄ²ªÀAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ 2-3 d£À §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ ¨É¯ï CªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ nÃ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ CªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ nÃ PÉÆlÄÖ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è ¤AvÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ nÃ PÀ¥ï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï & CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ ºÁ¯ï M¼ÀUÉ §A¢ÝzÀÝgÀÄ. nÃ PÀ¥ï ElÄÖ §AzÀÄ PÀtÚ¼ÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ SIT ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ PÉÃ½¹vÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. 38 12. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ UÀAmÉUÉ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlgÀÄ? CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÀUÉ §A¢ÝzÀgÁ? ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ §AzÁUÀ 11.15 £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄªÁVvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 30 ¤«ÄµÀ EzÀÄÝ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ C®èAiÉÄÃ EzÀÝ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ E£ï«mÉÃµÀ£ï PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉÆgÀqÀÄªÁUÀ ¥ÀgÀªÀÄ²ªÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ 2-3 eÉÆvÉ §AzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÀÄ²ªÀAiÀÄå ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ¤«ÄµÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ F ªÀÄzsÉå qÁPÀÖgï ¤ÃgÀeï ¸ÁºÉÃ§jUÉ ªÁgÀzÀ EeÉA¸ÀÌ£ï PÉÆqÀ®Ä §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è PÀÄj¹zÉ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï & gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÀÄ²ªÀAiÀÄå & CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀÝªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¯ï £À°è ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. 13. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ CzÉÃ ¢£À ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢ÝzÀgÁ? ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ C°è EzÀÝgÀÄ? D ¢£À ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ MlÄÖ 2 ¨Áj §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ 11.15 £ÀAvÀgÀ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. §AzÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ §½ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár nÃ PÀÄrzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ²ªÀ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár E£ï«mÉÃµÀ£ï £À£ÀÄß ¸ÁºÉÃ§jUÉ ¤Ãr ºÉÆgÀqÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀgÀªÀÄ²ªÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ 2-3 d£À §AzÀÝgÀÄ. ¥ÀgÀªÀÄ²ªÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï & CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ §AzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀ ªÉÃ¼É qÁPÀÖgï ¤ÃgÀeïgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ EAeÉPÀë£ï£ÀÆß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï£À°è PÀÆj¹zÉÝ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï & gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£ÉÃ ¨Áj §AzÀÄ ºÁ¯ï£À°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15 ¤«ÄµÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ qÁPÀÖgï ¤ÃgÀeïgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁ¯ï §AzÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§jUÉ ªÁgÀzÀ EAeÉPÀë£ï £À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. 14. CªÀgÀÄ DUÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢¢AiÀiÁ? D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ J°è E¢Ýj? CªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ C¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV PÉÃ½¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÉÃ½¸À°®è DzÀgÉ SIT ªÀÄvÀÄÛ LzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ PÉÆÃn JA§ ¥ÀzÀ PÉÃ½¹vÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁ¯ïUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï £À°è ¤AwzÉÝ, 2£ÉÃ ¨Áj D ¢£ÀªÉÃ §AzÁUÀ F ªÀiÁvÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÄÝ C¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV PÉÃ½¹vÀÄÛ. 15. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÉAiÀiÁ? CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀgÁ? ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è. 39 16. ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ? ¤ÃªÀÅ D ¢£À CªÀjUÉ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ ¥Á¤ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝgÁ? 05/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ JA¢£ÀAvÉ ¨É¼ÀîUÉ ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï ElÄÖ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ UÀ£ïªÉÄ£ï w½¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ nÃ ¤ÃgÀÄ PÉÆlÄÖ VÃ¸Àgï & ¯ÉÊmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D£ï ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1 UÀAmÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ dÆ¸ï PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀÄ qÉÊ¤AUï mÉÃ§¯ïUÉ §AzÁUÀ wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §r¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. 05/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ §UÉÎ £É£À¥ÀÄ §gÀÄwÛ®è. 17. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? CªÀgÉÆnÖUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀÝgÁ? 20/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è £Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ 5 UÀAmÉ AiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ «±ÁæAw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝ. 18. D ¢£À CªÀgÀÄ J°è PÀÄ½wzÀÝgÀÄ? CªÀjUÉ K£ÀzÀgÀÆ ¥Á¤ÃAiÀÄ ¤Ãr¢ÝgÁ? CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ? CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÉAiÀiÁ? 20/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ §A¢gÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢®è CAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ 5 UÀAmÉAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ «±ÁæAw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝ. 19. CªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¥Á¸ï ºÉÃUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¢zÉAiÀiÁ? 20/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀ §UÉÎ DUÀ° ºÉÆÃzÀ §UÉÎ DUÀ° w½¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. 20. ²æÃªÀÄw ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUïgÀªÀgÀÄ ²æÃ ©.J¸ï.AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ¯ÁzÀgÀÆ §A¢zÀgÁ? AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ¹AUï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÀt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj §A¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝÃ£É CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå EgÀÄªÀªÀgÀAvÉ ªÀwð¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÁV £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸À®Ä ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. CªÀgÀÄ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ vÀUÀqÀÆgÀÄ eÉÆvÉ §A¢zÀÝ£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÉÝÃ£É. ¸À»/- £Á£É §gÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. (ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï eÉ.J¸ï) 04-05-2024” 40 Yet another witness upon which the petitioner seeks to place heavy reliance upon is of one Sri Shivananda Tagaduru. His statement is as follows: “ …. …. …. ? &: 06.04.2024 $ [&\&$& /1./]&0 !D$, /1.J ‹ R&_ $$0` :;&$' R& J ) 0` t ) $, 0$ > 1$2G cR&0, ) + ) ( eg † c0` >Š &@ -†.-¡.-. !K&” "Vb $?0` t ) $, . ? & 12.04.2024 $ > 1$2G cR&0, ) + d † , d :• ( eg † !"0` >Š &@ -¡.-.-g. ]&" !"#$ $> "Vb $?0` t ) $, , 1$2 --1 < .X& < . ]&±C •&gc0` -¡.-.-g.0 ] e²&8 ³$, •$ o t 8+ • &( cR&0, R& 6G 0? R&0= &=X&) 3 8] ?) $, . 0$ ? &:15.04.2024 $ 1$2) 3 4?7 T= 0t –"G 8Zb :5gïì 4B , D= >Ž6_!"0` •$ o • &( cR&0, ) D R& 6G 0? R&0= &=X&) 3 8] ?) + £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ? &: 19.04.2024 $ >Š &@ -¡.-.-g. ]&" !"#$ gÀªÀjUÉ "Vb $?0` t ) $, . ? &: 06.04.2024 $ --1 < .s ]&±C [&=g c0` -¡.-.-g. ]&") 3 "Vb $?0` t ) $, . ? &: 06.05.2024 $ 1$2 .X&Z&$& /1.7& U , 17 YZ &Q $$0` :;&$' R& >$ J ) !"0` t ) $, . ? &: 08.05.2024 $, [&\&$& /1 @7& J •.<_ $$0` :;&$' R& J ) 0` t ) $, ? &: 15.05.2024 $ [&\&$& /1.&E] 1 J •.<_ $$ ]&±C [&=g t R& 6G 0? R&0= &=X&) 3 8] ? 0$ > ]&±C [&=g c0` ? &:21.05.2024 $ >Š &@ -¡.-.-g ]&") 3 "Vb$, . ? &: 24.05.2024 $ > 1$2G cR&0, ) + ) ( eg †0GzÀÝ T=) 3 4I «*G0 ^£8 --1 < . d.r R&> ^£8*? J ) &@ >Š &@ -¡.-.-g ]&") 3 "Vb$, .” 41 The afore-quoted are the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. upon which heavy reliance is placed. 10. The victim has also tendered her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The victim gives vivid narration of what transpired on 02-02-2024, which is as follows: “On questioning the victim, she stated that she is giving statement without any fear from any person. The victim is knowing Kannada and English languages and she preferred to give statement in English. I am residing in abovesaid address along with my mother. My mother is household used to take care of me. On 2-02-2024 at about 11.00 a.mm. to 12.00 noon around I went to house of Sri Yadiyurappa for 2 reasons. Out of them first reason with respect to the POCSO case which was registered through my mother which was in the year 2015 in order to make SIT enquiry of abovesaid case along with other related cases and second reason is for the case which was occurred with respect to my mother’s trading business. I went to house of Sri Yadiyurappa along with my mother, at that time Sri Yadiyurappa was sitting in the hall of his house situated at Dollar’s colony. His house name is Dhavalagiri. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa was watching TV and we greeting him by saying Namaste. Immediately he held my right wrist by his left hand, I thought he is as if my grandfather. My mother sat in another sofa adjoining to the chair in which Sri Yadiyurappa was sitting. He enquired about my name and education. Meanwhile my mother was showing all documents which was brought by her. He was not fully concentrated towards the documents which was showing and explaining by my mother, but he was 42 watching TV. Later on, Sri Yadiyurappa ordered his cook by name Hanumanthu to get tea for my mother and milk for me. Accordingly, cook Hanumanthu brought the tea and Milk and kept on Tipoy. Then Sri Yadiyurappa left my wrist and instructed to have milk and my mother was instructed to have tea. While drinking tea also my mother was continued to explain details of her case. After having of milk and tea we kept our cups on tipoy. 2. Later on, Sri Yadiyurappa called me inside. At that time my mother asked whether she too permitted to come inside or not, at that time he instructed my mother to be in outside. At that time, I thought that, during enquiry of the previous POCSO case I have been enquired privately, so I thought like that only. At that time my mother also instructed me to give cases details properly. Accordingly, I followed Sri Yadiyurappa and I went to one room which was situated beside the hall in which few sofas and few tables were there. Immediate entering in that room Sri Yadiyurappa locked the door with key. By observing this locking process I thought why he is locking the door. He approached near to me and asked am I able to identify the culprit of previous case. I say yes loudly. At that time again he asked about my age at that time committal of previous offence. I told 6 and half years old, again I repeated this word as he had not heard it properly. While repeating my age factor second time, he put his left hand in my shirt and bra and squeezed my right breast, immediately I pushed his left hand with my left hand and stay away from him. At that time, I about to cry and told him to open the door with some angry. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa said okey and he put his hand in his pocket and take some money in order to give me. I declined to accept it. At that time he instructed me to not to deny any such offer, it is nothing but a blessings of the elder persons. By saying this one he kept the money in my hands. Thereafter he opened the key and we went outside. My mother who was sitting outside saw my face which was sad and my eyes were filled up of tears. She guessed that as I have been enquired about previous case, so due to recalling of previous bad event I might have felt sad. 43 3. After coming out of the room Sri Yadiyurappa sat in the same chair by saying to my mother that, I was so mentally disturbed. Meanwhile I went to aside of my mother, sit along with my mother. My mother was continuously explaining that since 9 years period we were trying to have justice, but in vain. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa told that he is helpless and he will see. By that time Sri Yadiyurappa also gave some money to my mother, at that time my mother was not ready to accept it. At that time I also told my mother that he had also given money to me. Then we both declined to accept it, but he advised that it is nothing but blessing of elderly persons. After this assurance we took our bag and went outside. 4. After crossing of their gate my mother was little bit ahead and I was following my mother and called her as Amma. She turned back and asked me what happened. At that time I requested my mother to go to Starbucks i.e., coffee shop is existing adjoining to Sri Yadiyurappa’s house. Accordingly, we went there and by sitting outside of that coffee shop I narrated entire incident, was taken place inside the room of Sri Yadiyurappa’s house. After hearing of abovesaid incident my mother get stunned and again we went back to Sri Yadiyurappa’s house to confront about that incident. 5. Then we went inside the gate of Sri Yadiyurappa’s house, then gunman by name Aradhya who sat near the main door asked me what had happened and my mother replied again we want to meet Sri Yadiyurappa. Then the gunman instructed us to wait for some time as Sri Yadiyurappa was in meeting with some other persons. Meanwhile my mother went aside within the compound itself and made phone call one lawyer by name R.R. Hiremath and narrated entire incident, at that time I was standing near by mother. My mother told that the above said counsel has instructed us to talk calmly. Thereafter my mother came to me and took out the cash from the bag which was given by Sri Yadiyurappa and we took one selfie with that cash. 6. When my mother was talking in phone at that time I was thinking that, in previous cases the police officials and public have asked me and my mother about evidence to prove the incident. Hence at this time also I thought that, the officials 44 may ask about evidence of present incident, then I made mind to record the conversation to be held with above said Sri Yadiyurappa. Then without knowledge to my mother after taking of selfie with cash the persons who were in the meeting came out, then while entering inside I set my phone for recording. The persons who came outside known by my mother and my mother spoke with them and requested them to be there only till we come out. Accordingly, we entered in the house. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa was watching TV. My mother asked him what he has done with her daughter inside that room. Sri Yadiyurappa replied to my mother that I am just like his granddaughter. Immediately my mother raised question that, if it like so, why you put your hand in her shirt/blouse. Immediately he dragged my mother’s hand and made her sit in sofa, I too followed my mother. Sri Yadiyurappa explained that he checked me and I am just like his granddaughter as he has 7 grand kids. Even though my mother objected for the thing done by him with me repeatedly, even though he answered that he want to check me just like that and I am like his grand- daughter. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa asked my mother what can be done by him. At that time my mother insisted him to support our cases in order to have proper SIT investigation and also insisted to support my mother’s cheating case in order to get our share in cheated amount. 7. After having little bit conversation with him, he pressed the buzzer and called the gunman inside and instructed him to make phone call to Sri D.K. Shivakumar. Accordingly, gunman ring up the phone call to Sri D.K. Shivakumar, but other side phone call is not picked. Hence, Sri Yadiyurappa assured us that he will make call to him and highlight the entire case facts, then he will report to us. At that time my mother asked his contact number, at that time he instructed my mother to take cell number of his gunman Aradhya, accordingly gunman gave his cell number. At that time my mother again requested him as we suffered allot in number of cases, hence he assured and advised to make phone call his gunman’s phone, so that gunman will connect it with him immediately. Thereafter he again advised us to come again if required. After having talk with him, he immediately instructed his gunman to make phone call to Commissioner Dayananda. Gunman made phone call to Commissioner and he picked up the phone. At that time Sri Yadiyurappa requested him by saying that he is 45 sending one lady by name Mamatha and further said that she suffered allot as nobody has supported them properly in order to get adequate justice. Further he says that it is our duty to support the victims towards getting of justice. Further he pokes to the Commissioner that we have a genuine case, hence he sending us to his office along with documents, so instructed him to go through the documents and what help which is possible to him to make favour. Further he instructed the Commissioner after having talk with us, he has to report to Sri Yadiyurappa. After cutting of phone call he instructed us to approach the abovesaid Commissioner. At that time my mother told that, she will not leave any police official or Minist4er who gave torture to us. He says okey. Thereafter we took our bag and came out of the house. 8. Then we came to bus stop and booked auto in order to reach the abovesaid Commissioner office. While going by auto I show the phone recording of phone to my mother and she watched half of the recorded video and by saying that later on she will see the remaining part. Immediately I took the phone and saved abovesaid video in my Google cloud. We approached the Commissioner office and my mother has narrated about trading offence and previous POCSO case along with related cases by having of documents and requested for proper SIT investigation. After going through the documents orally they assured as he will going through the documents in detail and he will intimate us. But, at that time we never disclosed the incident which was took place with me to that Commissioner. Thereafter we went outside the office and went home. 9. Thereafter on 3rd and 4th February when my mother tried to make phone call to gunman of Sri Yadiyurappa by name Aradhya, but gunman not responded properly nor picked our phone call. Hence, on 4th February itself one person by name S.S. Hiremath friend of my mother instructed to approach the Sri Yadiyurappa’s son by name Vijayendra. Accordingly, on 5th February around about 11.00 a.m. we again approached house of Sri Yadiyurappa, Dhavalagiri along with abovesaid S.S.Hiremath in order to meet the Vijayendra. At that time security guard stopped us by saying that, so many persons, public along with media person are there inside, so he made us to wait for some time. Then we went to abovesaid Starbucks coffee shop were when I was sitting and Hiremath and my 46 mother were standing at little distance. At that time my mother narrated the entire incident to abovesaid S.S.Hiremath. We waited for sometime and later on we went inside the house as gunman instructed us to sit in basement where some chairs are there. We waited for some time, meanwhile Vijayendra went away on some work. Hence, it was not possible for us to talk with the Vijayendra. But, we again approached the Sri Yadiyurappa to talk further. We entered in to hall and Sri Yadiyurappa was there sitting in the sofa. Myself and my mother sat on sofa and abovesaid S.S. Hiremath was also sitting on the separate chair. My mother told that, the above said Aradhya gunman not picked her phone calls, therefore it make us to come again to meet you, at that time Sri Yadiyurappa replied that I already told us that he was helpless but he instructed the concerned Commissioner to go through the documents. Meanwhile, the S.S. Hiremath instructed one person who is present there to take photo pics of us through Hiremath’s phone. After taking photos Sri Yadiyurappa repeatedly saying same thing as he is helpless and he instructed through concerned Commissioner to take care of the cases. Lastly we took another pics along with Sri Yadiyurappa and came out of the housed. Later on, above said S.S.Hiremath had send the photo pics to our phone later an we went home. 10. Later on, on 15-02-2024 my mother through online lodged with the complaint to Hon’ble President and through e- mail she send same complaint to Home Secretary and Commissioner probably Dayanand. Because already some persons were knowing above abovesaid recorded video made by me as they were pressurizing us to send that video. But my mother declined to publish it. When the pressure of the above said was not tolerable at that time, my mother uploaded the above said recorded video and screen shot copy of the complaint in face book media. Thereafter on 16-02-2024 at the evening time there was one phone call through unknown number by name Rudresh by saying that, the son’s of the Sri Yadiyurappa by name Raghavendra and Vijayendra want to meet us. At that time my mother told that, today it is not possible for us as we were very nearest to our house. Again he insisted to come immediately, but my mother declined to obey his instruction by saying that we will on tomorrow. 47 11. On 17-02-2024 in the morning time abovesaid Rudresh again made phone call by saying that, they are already nearest to our house and went to meet us. Then my mother invited him to come home. We are residing in apartment and they were in the car near to our gate. We approached our gate to invite where 2 persons were inside the car including Rudresh. Then we requested them to come at garden which is existing nearest the park which is existing within our compound gate. Accordingly, we went in the park and sit in the bench, for safety purpose we set our mobile recording. I do not know about that Rudresh and another one by name Mariswamy. They get introduced themselves. They sat on another bench. When they normally talking with us I observed cleanly the above said Mariswamy was capturing phone of us and recording was on. Rudresh and my mother were talking and Rudresh told my mother to approach the Sri Yadiyurappa’s son’s by name Vijayendra and Raghavendra who where at home situated at Dollar’s colony. My mother told as we were in simple dress, so will come in proper dress. At that time, Rudresh told us, he will want for us in park. Accordingly, went hone and get ready and come outside. My mother made phone call to the PA of the Vijayendra by name Arun and told about abovesaid Rudresh and Mariswamy who have approached us, at that time Arun told us that they both are belongs to them and instructed us to accompany them. My mother told Rudresh that we will come through auto cab, but he insisted to come with them through their car. The diver and Rudresh were sat in front side, myself, my mother and Mariswamy sat in backside of the Furtuner car. While going in this car my mother recorded short video to show our journey through their car. Then almost we were nearer to the Dhavalagiri house, at that time Rudresh told us to enter the Sri Yadiyurappa’s house through their rear door in order to avoid the public and media agency. My mother insisted to enter through front gate only. Accordingly, we went their house through front gate. While getting down of the car we found no person and public in front of the door. Apart entering into the gate Rudresh told us to wait by sitting at basement. Accordingly, we were sitting in the sofa at basement and waiting. At that time Raghavendra came there and instructed to Rudresh to take us through door which is existing at basement through which we can enter inside the house. Thereafter Raghavendra went inside the house. After sometime Rudresh approached us to take inside the house. Accordingly, 48 through staircase we entered inside the house. At that time, in the hall nobody was there, the abovesaid Rudresh took us to the room which was adjoining to the hall in which the previou9s incident was taken place. Accordingly, we entered that room where Sri Yadiyurappa and Raghavendra were sitting on the sofa chair. But, as per assurance given by the Rudresh and Arun we were about to meet the Raghavendra and Vijayendra son’s the Sri Yadiyurappa. But, inside the room Sri Yadiyurappa and Raghavendra were there. As per their instruction we sat on the single sofa. Likewise Mariswamy and Rudresh were also came and sitting on the another sofa. Before there sitting on sofa Sri Yadiyurappa instructed them to keep aside the mobile phones belongs to all of us. So I gave our phone to Rudresh who kept it outside the room and closed the door after coming inside. Meanwhile Sri Yadiyurappa instructed his cook Hanumanthu to bring watermelon juice for all except him. Sri Yadiyurappa insisting us to have a juice, but I declined to having juice as I have doubt on them. But, he gave juice to my mother forcibly. My mother was sipping juice slowly. 12. When my mother started to talk with Sri Yadiyurappa, at that time he told that he already instructed the concerned Commissioner to have fair investigation. My mother told him that after visiting the Commissioner on 2nd February she has no updated information from the concerned Commissioner. My mother narrated that she had visited number of times and met to Sri Yadiyurappa for justice including other politicians, but no required help provided by anybody including NGO. My mother narrated that we met the Vijayendra in the month of January 2024 at Shikaripura and submitted set of documents. At that time Vijayendra told his PA Arun to keep those documents in sealed condition in cover. Then, the Raghavendra asked my mother is that so, by calling the PA Arun instructed to being that document. Accordingly, Arun brought the documents and gave it to the Raghavendra. He verified the entire documents lightly and was asking about the documents and my mother was narrating about documentation. Sri Yadiyurappa assured us to support our cases by calling the Commissioner their house and given required relief. Accordingly, Sri Yadiyurappa instructed to have Rudresh number and timely enquire about the case developments. The Raghavendra said that we could not have put the videos on facebook and ought not to have complaint to President. 49 Meanwhile, Sri Yadiyurappa instructed abovesaid Rudresh to delete all video clips which were recorded in our mobile. Rudresh instructed abovesaid Arun to delete above said all records and complaints from our phone. Accordingly, Arun brought my mothers phone inside the room and opened the phone and deleted the screen shot of the complaint was lodged to the Hon’ble President including videos by entering into my mother’s facebook account. He also verified phone gallery in order to deletion of recordings and screenshot complaints and videos. After deletion of all those evidences he kept it outside. He too insisted to delete the complaint which was lodged before the President and the e-mail complaint lodged before the Secretary, at that time my mother replied that, Sri Yadiyurappa has committed blunder, so declined to delete those evidences. But in my mobile we have recorded the conversation with Sri Yadiyurappa held on 2nd February remained intact as I did not have taken my phone with me. Thereafter we stood up go out of the house, at that time Sri Yadiyurappa who was sitting on chair nearby table on which one Mini bag was kept, that has been offered to us. When my mother objected for is, at that time Sri Yadiyurappa told as we have problems, so he requested to take that bag. My mother not agreed to take that bag s we are fighting for justice since more than 9 years period. I too requested them to leave us without such offer. At that time all were insisted us to sit on the sofa and forced to take that bag. At that time I requested them to issue some acknowledgement regarding giving money to us. Finally they insisted to take money in the form of loan including the amount what which given by Sri Yadiyurappa on 2-02-2024. Likewise, Sri Yadiyurappa also insisted to accept it as a loan along with previous amount given by him. In turn I insisted them to given acknowledgement in written to that effect, but they not agreed to do so. As per instruction of Sri Yadiyurappa above said Rudresh took that bag and kept it in our bag pack. While going out from the house, Sri Yadiyurappa told us to inform any information to the abovesaid Rudresh over phone. While going out, Rudresh instructed us to go through their Fortuner car and accordingly, their driver gave lift to us for about half of the distance. Thereafter we get down from their car and picked the bus. Thereafter we gave our phones to the CID officers including cash bag which was given on 17-02-2024 and cash given on 2-02-2024. Entirely we gave amount of ₹35,000/- to 50 the CID offices as they asked to submit them towards collection of evidence. 13. Hence, based abovesaid narrated facts and circumstances I lodged with the complaint against the above said Sri Yadiyurappa. Hence, it is my humble request to take appropriate legal action against him. The above said facts are true. Sd/- 26-03-2024 Signature of the Victim. R.O.I and A.C. Sd/- XXV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.” (Emphasis added) There is a vivid narration of the incident by the victim about what all has happened on that day. Now the issue is statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. being pitted against the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is statement vs. statement. What would outweigh the other is not the stage, at which this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., would consider. Such consideration of quashment of the proceedings, relying on the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is only under rare and exceptional circumstances, when such statements would clearly indicate a further proceeding to become an abuse of the process of 51 the law or resulting in patent injustice. It is no law that those statements should not be looked into at all, at the time of quashment of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The inherent powers are wide enough to do so, but they can be exercised on a case to case basis, when exceptions of the kind noted hereinabove are present, which would be to prevent miscarriage of justice. I do not find any such threat of miscarriage of justice seen in the entire proceeding. There is also an audio transcript of the conversation between the petitioner and the first informant, what is relevant need to be quoted. The relevant transcript is as follows: “ªÀÄUÀÄ: AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀrÛzÁgÉ vÁ¬Ä: -------------- ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ X: ºÀ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¤ªÀÄUÉ Contact ªÀiÁrÛzÀ£À®è X: ºÀ ºËzÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ------ X: §¤ß EzÁgÉ K£ï «µÀAiÀÄ §A¢zÁgÉ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: §A¢zÁgÀ ªÀÄUÀÄ: MAzÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀ meet ªÀiÁqï©qÀt ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: MAzï ¤«ÄµÀ Ej MAzÉÃ MAzÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀ X: ºÉÆÃUï §¤ß ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: E¯Éè Ej ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf E¯ÉèÃ EzÁæ C¥Áàf K£ï ªÀiÁr¢æ ¤ÃªÀÅ M¼ÀUÉ PÀgÀPÉÆAqÀ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: M¼ÀUÉ PÀgÀPÉÆAqÀ ºÉÆÃV K£ï ªÀiÁr¢æ C¥Áàf 52 ©J¸ïªÉÊ: PÉÃ¼ÀÄ K£ï ªÀiÁqÉÝ CAvÀ £À£Àß ªÉÆªÀÄäUÀ¼À EzÀÝAUÉ CªÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: M¼ÀUÉ ¨Ëè¸ï M¼ÀUÉ PÉÊ ºÁQzÀæAvÀ®è C¥Áàf ©J¸ïªÉÊ: £À£Àß ªÉÆªÀÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝAUÉ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: DAiÀÄÄÛ M¼ÀUÉ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ »A¸É C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¹zÁÝ¼É. ©J¸ïªÉÊ: C¯Áè ªÀÄj MAzï ¤«ÄµÀ ºÉÃ½ÛÃ¤ PÉÃ¼ÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÉÃ£ï vÀ¯É PÉr¸ÉÆÌÃ¨ÉÃqÀ, £À£Àß ªÉÆªÀÄäPÀÌ¼ÀÄ 7 d£À EzÀÝgÉ, vÀÄA¨Á M¼ÉîÃ ºÀÄrÎ CªÀ¼ÀÄ, £ÉÆÃqÉÝ £Á£ÀÄ, CªÀ¼Àß ZÉ£ÁßV ¨É¼À¸ÀÄ K£ï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ £Á£ï ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: CªÀ¼À Blouse M¼ÀUÉ PÉÊ ºÁQzÀgÀ®è C¥Áàf ©J¸ïªÉÊ: E¯Áè ªÀÄj ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: £Á£ÀÄ vÀqÀPÉÆ¼ÉÆÃPÉ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf J®ègÀÆ »AUÉ£Á zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁqÉÆÃzÀÄ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: CªÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÆªÀÄäUÀ¼À EzÀÝAUÉÃ vÀÄA§ M¼ÉîÃ ºÀÄqÀÄV ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÉÝ CªÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ M¼ÉîÃzÁUÀÄvÉÛ, CzÉÃ£ï ¨ÉÃPÉÆÃ £Á£ï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤ ZÉ£ÁßV CªÀ¼À£Àß £ÉÆÃqÀPÉÆÃ CµÉÖ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: »AUÉ »ÃUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrÛÃgÁ 9 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ºÉÆÃgÁl ªÀiÁrÛ¢¤ C¥Áàf £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É NOC PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¯ÁAiÀÄgï 9£ÉÃ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï. £Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ CAvÀ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï UÀ¼À£Àß ©J¸ïªÉÊ: ¤AUÉ K£ï ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ. ©J¸ïªÉÊ: C®è ªÀÄj ¤£ÀUÉÃ£À ¨ÉÃPÀ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ £Á£ï ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÁAiÀÄgï Er¹ E¯Áè SIT Form ªÀiÁrì, ¸ÉàµÀ¯ï E£Éé¹ÖUÉÃµÀ£ï ©J¸ïªÉÊ: AiÀiÁgÀ AiÀiÁjUÉ ªÀiÁqïì¨ÉÃPÀÄ, AiÀiÁjUÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÉâÃPï. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ jmÉÊqïð eÉ£ÀÄå£ï DVgÉÆÃ dqïÓ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï ºÉUÀqÉ CAvÀ dqïÓUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖ©lÄÖ J¸ï.L.n ¥sÁªÀiïð ªÀiÁrìAiÀÄ¯Áè F PÉÃ¸ï£À°è JµÀÄÖ C£ÁåAiÀÄ UÀ¼ÀÄ DUÁÛ EzÉ, ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À PÉÃ¸À°è CzÉ¯Áè DZÉ §gÀÄvÉÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÆæ¥sï ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ºÉÃ½ÛÃ¤. 54 ¸Á«gÀ PÁ¯ï gÉPÁqïÀìð EzÉ. 54 ¸Á«gÀ PÁ¯ï gÉPÁqïìð EzÉ... .. ©J¸ïªÉÊ: K£ï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃQÃUÀ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: £À£ÀUÉ SIT Form ªÀiÁrì, ¸ÉàµÀ¯ï E£Éé¹ÖUÉÃµÀ£ï nÃªÀiï, E£Éé¹ÖUÉÃµÀ£ï D¯ï zÀ PÉÃ¸ï ºÉAUÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¯ÁAiÀÄgïUÀ¼ÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ gËr ²ÃlgïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï UÁåAUïzÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£É M¼ÀUÉ £ÀÄVì vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî CAvÀ ¥ÀÆæªï ªÀiÁqÁPÁ? ©J¸ïªÉÊ: £Á£ï ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤ ©qÀÄ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÉèÃ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÉèÃ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ vÀUÉÆ½î ¤ÃªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½ÛÃ¤ PÉÃ¼ÀÄ ¨Á¼À M¼Éî ºÀÄqÀÄV CªÀ¼ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÉÝÃ ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÉÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¸ÀºÀ “AiÀiÁgÉÆÃ§âjUÀÆ£ÀÄ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®è” ZÉ£ÁßV ¨É¼É¸ÀÄ £Á£ÉÃ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÉÆÃ £Á£ï ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤ EzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛ¤ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß C®è EzÀ£Àß §¸ÀªÀgÁd ¨ÉÆªÀiÁä¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÉÃ ªÀiÁrÛ£ÀAvÀ ºÉÃ½zÀÄæ DªÁUÉèÃ£É C«æUÉ £À£Àß §UÉÎ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî create ªÀiÁr 53 ©J¸ïªÉÊ:FUÀ ªÀÄÄVvÀ®èªÀÄä ©J¸ïªÉÊ: AiÀiÁj ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃPÀÄ FUÀ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ºÉÃ½ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀiÁvÀ AiÀiÁgÀÄ vÉUÉAiÀÄ®è E®è CAzÉæ central ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹, zÉÆqÀØ zÉÆqÀØ IPS officer ¹PÀÌºÁPÉÆArzÁgÉ MAzÀ qÀd£ïUÀlÖ¯É, IO UÀ¼ÀÄ ¹PÁÌPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrÛÃ¤ «dAiÀÄtÚUÉ ªÀiÁvÁqï©lÄÖ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: £Á£ÀÄ C«æUÉ PÉÆnÖ¢¤ £Á£ÀÄ E£Àß ©qÀ®è EµÉÆÖAzÀÄ zËdð£ÀåUÀ¼ÁVâlÄÖ EªÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ »A¸É DVÛzÉ. ©J¸ïªÉÊ: £À£Àß dªÁ¨ÁÝj £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrÛÃ¤ K£ï¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrÛ¤ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: £Á£ÀÄ C¥ÁàfAiÀÄAvÀ PÀjÃw¤ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀvÀgÀºÀ£ÉÃ £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆ½î £À£Àß protection ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸À® £Á£ÀÄ E°è §A¢¢¤ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: RArvÁ £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrÛÃ¤ ¤Ã£ï K£ï vÀ¯ÉPÉqÀ¸ÀPÉÆÃ¨ÉÃqÀ, £À¤ßAzÀ DUÉÆÃ J¯Áè ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤ DAiÀiÁÛ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: £À£ÀUÉ CµÉÆÖAzÀÄ »A¸É DVzÉ £À£ÀUÉ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: ¤£Àß £ÉÆÃªÀÅ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ EAl°eÉAmï EzÉAiÀiÁ A to Z explain ªÀiÁr¢AiÀiÁ CªÀ¼ÀÄ M¼ÉîÃ ºÀÄqÀÄV ¨É¼É¸ÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛAiÀiÁÛ, AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÀÄÌ ¤£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®è ¸Àj ªÀiÁqÁìuÁ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ EzÀ£Àß SIT ªÀiÁrì £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è£ÀÆ PÉÆrÛ¤ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï CtÚUÀÆ PÉÆrÛÃ¤ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï ºÀvÀæ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½ÛÃ¤, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï ºÀvÀæ ªÀiÁvÁqÀÄ ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¤ÃªÀÅ opposition £À°è EzÀÝPÉÆAqÀÄ support ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀ®è ¤ÃªÀÅ gÉÊ¸ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ FUÀ -----PÉÊ¯É DUÀvÀÛ®è ©J¸ïªÉÊ: rPÉ ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgïUÉ vÀUÉÆ¼À¥Áà ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ C¯Áé. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ºÁ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: DzÀgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÀoÀªÁ¢PÀtªÀÄä, ªÉÄZÀÑ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤£Àß. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: C¥Áàf £Á£ï M¨ÉîÃ AiÀiÁgÀÆÝ ¸À¥ÉÆÃmïð vÀUÉÆÃAr¯Áè M§â¼ÉÃ £À£ÀUÉ JµÀÆÖ CmÉA¥ïÖ lÄ ªÀÄqÀðgï ªÀiÁqÉÆPÉÌ mÉæöÊ ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ »mï CAqï gÀ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ®AUïì PÁå£ÀìgïzÀÄ D¥ÀgÉÃµÀ£ï DzÁUÀ DQìd£ï §Azï ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆÃªÀiÁUÀÆ ºÉÆÃV¢ÝÃ¤--------CdÓgÀÄ CAzÀÄæ ¤£Àß£Àß £Á£ÀÄ UÀªÀÄ¤¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ï DgÁªÀiÁV §jÛÃAiÀiÁ CAvÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ £ÀAUÉ CWÉÆÃjUÀ½AzÀ, «µÀÄÚ ªÀiÁAiÉÄ CAvÉ. PÀÄnÖÃ ZÉÃvÀ£ï JAvÀAvÁ vÁAwæPÀ ªÀiÁAwæPÀ ªÁªÀiÁZÁgÀ J¯Áè ªÀiÁqÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£É ¨ÁV°UÉ §AzÀÄ C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï C°è §AzÀÄ gÀPÀÛ ZÀÄ«Ää ºÉÆÃUÁÛgÉ, 2 UÀAmÉ 3 UÀAmÉ gÁwæAiÀÄ°è, MAzÉÆAzÀ¸À° ªÀÄUÀÄ MAzÉÆAzÉÃ EgÀÄvÉÛÃ Day time C°è PÉÆÃmïðUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ©J¸ïªÉÊ: ---------------CªÀ¼ÀÄ M¼ÉîÃ ºÀÄqÀÄVÃ. ªÀÄªÀÄvÀ: ¨ÁV®Ä §AzÀÄ §rÃwgÁÛgÉ. 54  JA - ¨ÁV®Ä §AzÀÄ §rÃwgÁÛgÉ. D ªÀÄUÀÄ ¨ÁV®Ä vÉUÉAiÀÄ¯Áè MAzÉÃ EgÀÛ®è ªÀÄ£É£À°è  ªÉÊ - PÀ®gï¥sÀÄ¯ï DV EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ M¼Éî ºÀÄqÀÄV CªÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ  JA - CªÀ¼ÉÃ ºÉÃ¼ÁÛ¼É. ©qÀzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀªÀiÁä CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉÆÃ CªÀgÀÄ JAxÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï D¦üÃ¸Àgï DUÀ®Ä JAxÀ zÉÆqÀØ «Ä¤¸ÀÖgï DUÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ£ÁågÀ£ÀÆß ©qÀzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ C¥Áàf JAmÉÊgï ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï 9 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ £À£Àß£Àß §UÀÎ¸ÀPÉÌ DV®è CAzÉæ ºÉAUÉ £Á£ÀÄ fÃªÀ£À ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ ºÉÃ½  ªÉÊ - D±ÀÑAiÀÄð C¥Áà -----------  JA - 9 ªÀµÀð £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæ«ÄÃ¼Á £ÉÃ¸ÀVð CªÀgÀÄ £ÀAUÉ ¸À¥ÉÆÃmïð ªÀiÁrzÀÄæ ¸ÁÖnðAUï£À°è CªÀgÀÄ CªÁUÉè ºÉÃ½zÀÄæ, ±ËAiÀÄð ¥Àæ±À¹Û PÉÆmÉæ ¤AUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ C¥Àà ¥ÀÆæ¥sï »qÉÆÌAr¢Ã¤ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw £ÁªÀÅ §jÃ JdÄPÉÃµÀ£ï D¹Û ªÀiÁrzÀ¯Áè C¥Áàf CªÀgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÃ¥sï EgÁÛgÉ C£ÉÆßÃzÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå C¯Áé What kind of society are we going to create, how safe our children are  JA - CªÀgÀÄ vÉVÃvÁ¬Ä®è ¸Àgï  ªÉÊ - ºÁ. . .  J - CªÀgÀÄ vÀVÃvÁ¬Ä®è, ªÁ¥À¸ï CªÀgÉÃ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ  ªÉÊ - ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgïUÉ ªÀiÁvÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ºÉÃ½ÛÃ¤. ºÉÆÃV ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁqÀÄ EªÀvÀÄÛ JµÉÆÖwÛzÀÄæ ¤AUÉ PÁAmÁPïÖ ªÀiÁrÛÃ¤.  JA - £À£ÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä £ÀA§gï ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ J¤mÉÊªÀiï PÁAmÁPïÖ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃ ºÁUÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ  ªÉÊ - £À£Àß ºÀvÀæ ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï E®è ¤£Àß £ÀA§gï PÉÆqÀÄ  JA - a£Áß ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï PÉÆqÀÄ  fJ¸ï - EzÀÄ £À£ÀßzÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï  JA - §ÄPï C°è §gÉÆÌAqï ©rÛÃ¤. ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï £À£Àß ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï PÀ¼É¢zÉ C¥Áàf, 25£ÉÃ vÁjÃRÄ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ÀgÀÄ PÉÆrÛ®è.  fJ¸ï - PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£À DVzÉ.  JA - "p0 R&  ªÉÊ - ªÀÄvÉÛ ¤£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ AiÀiÁªÀ £ÀA§gï EzÉÃ ªÀÄj.  JA - c F" 04_AiÉÄÃ 00` F ` 04_  ªÉÊ - ) D c X&zÉÆÃ ) D  JA - 89 04_ J $  ªÉÊ - 80` A,$ ( eg FzÁå > 55  fJ¸ï - F c90 c9 P R&t  JA - ]&! ˆ ?&+ˆ  J - 7348998962  JA - <&^= c$?  J - 04_ R& 04_ &0 ; ¤ DzÀÆæ E£ÉÆß§æ ºÀvÀæ EgÀÄvÉÛ.  JA -  ªÉÊ - ©J¸ïªÉÊ c 4gÉÆÌ"ªÀiÁä c$ R& 1 0 B6 R&D7&,  JA - 00 ˜ 7 <&, FzÀÄæ 8 )&g R&,8  ªÉÊ - anytime you can telephone to me 04_ R&qÀÆ )& 1 F ` [&> & 7&,X&, &0 ˜0 1` R&D PÉÆÃ c R&,¤Ã  JA - &0 OD?¯Áè ch&rŽ  ªÉÊ - ²ªÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï A,$ J •´ i9 ------ 80 A¥]&? c 7&,,.  ªÉÊ - -N 6,1 &0 R&7&,8  JA - ch&rŽ &0 h&1Z :Y :Y <@ 1 &0 &0 ) 56 O,8, 00 D) ¼ÀPÉÌ vÁPÀvÀÄÛ EzÉ. 8 , cG DzÀæG ¥sÉÊ¯ï [&:&$ ) =J&$ &0 ! R&,8 < 00 ] Z †C R&t&, F&+ . £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ£ÀÄ §AzÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä zÀÄqÀÄØ ¹PÀÌ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ CAvÀ  ªÉÊ - c $o' FG  JA - Jn &0 cr c98 7 R&D) 3 <!G, 83 YZ 00` ch&rŽ 4 < Y† <@ eh& <@ .  ªÉÊ - -GzÀgÉÃ?  JA - /(!QG F&+ !  JA - 09 c98! < Y† <@  ªÉÊ - /(!QG F&+&  JA - Jn M&=f 0!$-------PÁ½Ã$ -Y6 &0 9 YZ? Ÿ> ….. É.. (£ÉßÃ0 &0 Ÿ> J @ :K2§0 R&t 3t 4 F$ W1*w R&t&, X& 1 police department F entire police department CªÀjUÉ instructions J @ 7 , AR& [ 6Y† -Y6 > 89 A1 4 c>! , . cY6 > §AzÀÆ §AzÀÆ 07& F c$ d -¡..<_ R&G ch&rŽ 56  ªÉÊ - F7 , cG R&7&$ &.  JA - ch&rŽ -Y6 > 89£Àß a R&?+8 7&,. :K*12§£Àß -Y6 > a R&?+8  ªÉÊ - cG9 80 &0 R&7&$ F7 , 7&  JA - &0 & 4??+8 00` !D0 u 7 £ÀÆ 4??+8  ªÉÊ - 80` u 7 R&7&+ F7 , cG9  JA - FG & R&7&?8  ªÉÊ - R&7&?  JA - Jn 8 Chief Minister DVzÁÝUÀÆå :™&0[n^G 89 A7&1£ÉÃ 4 R&7&?+8. &ZÀ¥Àà u 7 4 :K*12§ u 7 4zÀÆ  J - )&] > 4?+ _ 7& R&7& J ?1 d [&>  JA - d [&> cG FM G 4??+8 00` !D0 u 7 2016-17  J - cG J YZ 4?+ J YZ )&] > 4?+  JA - ------@ ; 4&K R&9s c2§8!0 J +  ªÉÊ - S š R&D F `  J - J&… _ S š R&,8  ªÉÊ - ([ ¤ J& cu Zw R&7&t ’ c  J - J&É> _  JA - 8 Chief Minister <zÁUÀÆè 4??+8 F"V opposition party F,G  ªÉÊ - <! cS z R&M&q  JA - 8 X&>UÉÆÃ œ† R& J zÉæ cN 6  ªÉÊ - X&>UÉÃ  JA - [ 6Y† iY0_ J ?1, g vïgÀÆ R&rè®è. 8g R&_ R&GG  ªÉÊ - g vï dˆ p0 cM&q  JA - R&G ch&rŽ, ¸ï £À$ R&D F ) 3 7& bUÉÃ  JA - -Y6 ¶1¡ ( ch&rŽ LzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ pages F it is not a parallel post office £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉÆrÛÃ¤ 8 )&Z$G F &`>! ) ,& cG it is just autograph J&W ?+& cN 6. That is what is happening. This is not why 57 we are coming to your place because cG local police station cG R&,G even commissioner J @,8  ªÉÊ - commissioner ˜0 J ˆ&, .  JA - 80 .<_ J&W -¡..<_ t e o† z & c7& X&0©.  ªÉÊ - X&0© d¼ÉîÃ 0µÁå  JA - Jnh&rŽ, < W1*w R&$ ˜0, ! 00` !ˆ b F$ )&zÉæ &0 J F uÁ 9 YZ ch&rŽ 00 [&¡6 ] _ cG F$"V &0 d ?0 d h&Z J !G d ?0 d &5g ˜£ÀÆ J $ ,G. £ÀA J Ž£Á R&$. & c ) 56 ) R&DzÁ@ 1 d $h&sUÉÆÃ <! W®è &0.  ªÉÊ - X&0© d¼ÉîÃ 0µÁå  JA - Jn ch&rŽ, < d"!t £ÉÃ ODGG &0 cM B (A† ch&sw (w cY6 > (g R&?1, cY6 > >) q6 R&,8 cY6 > J @,8 X&$ d4’$ a R&DG.  ªÉÊ - K ... X&0© vÀPÉÆˆ #  JA - X&$ a R&DG jÃ.. 00` 4 Q "Vp c J ˆ&, .  ªÉÊ - qr 80 calm <@ R&7& ) ˆ&, 80 J •´ R&7&t , . •&]&@ R&7&D .  f.J¸ï - d 8iY  JA - ch&rŽ & 7&s, 00` ! 6 YZ ! <]&@£ÀÆ suffer <&, F G. &0 X& 7&s [&s) ¼ÁÛ J "h&rŽ. 8 c0Cq d responsible <@, 3 7 <zÉæ, ! ˜0 -Y6, 0 0 r, J &mÁ R&t h&r.  ªÉÊ - &0 80 d ct qe R&t FN 6 80 X&$ ` a R&DzÀÆæ R&™&0]&@ short <@ d $ 8iYG @, J •´ R& &D 1 they will not take it seriously calm <@ qr c 0 PÉÆÃ c0` R&7&D .  J - _ 0[ ,, AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà [&J 4gÀÄ s $  JA - 8 - R&C ch&rŽ, ¨ÉÆªÀiÁä¬Ä c$ J 1 -.. R&,8 c d M 5_ £ÀÆ ) 61.  ªÉÊ - c <,ªÀiÁä  JA - cG <! FUÀ EgÉÆÃ Government C¯ÉèÃ ªÀiÁrì.  J - _ 0[ , _ 58 _ 0[ , _  J - _ _ _ _ AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà [&J 4$ s _ ¸ÁºÉÃ§Äæ R&7&t&, _  ªÉÊ - AiÀiÁgÀÄ  J - iY0_ [&J 4gÀÄ X&0© gÀªÀgÀÄ  ªÉÊ - X&0© c , AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà R&7&,8 0[&3$. 7& c J ’lÆÖ, c$0 ¼ÀÄ») ,8, 4A" 7 zÉæUÉ PÉÆÌÃAgÉÃ 4A" c &= <@ c>UÉÃ X&$ c>UÉÃ >X&@ wZ R&,¯Áè. 09 D= F c$0` wZ R&DzÀÆ c$0` J gr R&qÉÆÃ CA+, FUÀ¯ÉÃ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁ iY0_ <¨UÉÀ J7& c 4gÁÛgÉ. cG J > UÉÃmï C°è d"!t OD , c$ c$ !"V 4gÁÛgÉ. :56 •&]&@ c$ R& ) O56, c> J gr R&D 7 , ]& 0 . Genuine case F c) 33$ &0 8 J ˆ&, F &0 [&R&0=]&@ X&>! œ† !ˆ R&DG 8 , .G qr "Vb) ,8, 7& c J ’56 ›) J !9 iY0_ <¨UÉ J @  JA - ºÁ. . . <(M œ† R&  ªÉÊ - 80 J ˆ # J "9, c$ ˜0 R&t&, R&G, 80` D= 80 R&D.  JA - 00` D= &0 R&qÁÛ E¢Ã¤ ch&rŽ, d  ªÉÊ - c 80` ! .. iY0_ A,$ short <@ ˜0 c &= <@ cY6 J "V.  J - ¯ï DV R&7&.  ªÉÊ - c& (M 80 œ† 04_ R&7& J "V c$ ˜0 J $ c  JA - >  ªÉÊ - <(M &0 v&M ck R& 8A J ,8.  J - g <@ R&7&  JA - C°è £Á£ÀÄ J¯ÉèÃ .. ... but EªÁUÀ £ÀAzÀ EzÁAiÀÄÛ®è CªÀ½UÉ 7 <,.  ªÉÊ - E®è Don’t worry I will take care.  JA - £À£ÀUÉ I am very c) 33$ F0` 00` !"V c 0 face R&qÉâÃPÉÆÃ c j <@,  ªÉÊ ---- u 7 J @ ) . &0 J gr R&qÉÛÃ£É. &0 J ¼ÉÃ£É, &0 J& R&t , . 59  JA - ch&rŽ &0 F R&1 conviction <!7 , 56 3" case 0G, 56 3" PÉÃ¸ï£À°è F R&1 conviction <!7 ,, iW3zÀÝ 98 ) 7 zÉæ R&qÁÛgÉ. c c$ G) 3 <!G. < 3"V mentally distruct <@ full life J&ˆ&!7 ,.  ªÉÊ - ! c"V u&$ R&t 37&ˆ J ; ´ R&7&D D. ! J ! commissioner A1 short DV ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ. $ <@ AiÀÄrAiÀÄÆgÀ¥Àà c$ "Vb ) 51 c J "V <(M 04_ œ† R&D c$ ˜0 J 1 c  JA - >  JA - &0 00` !ˆ c cG I want to bring out the truth cN 6  ªÉÊ - I will give support.  JA - ok  ªÉÊ - dˆ p <!9 !"V dˆ p !"V gÉÆÌAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ  JA - <,.” (Emphasi s added ) The conversation is sent to FSL. The FSL confirms the voice is that of the petitioner and also confirms the fact that it is not morphed or the mobile was subject of hacking. Since it is a report of the FSL, taking note of the same cannot lead to establishment of the guilt. It has to be tested in evidence. Therefore, these matters would undoubtedly require to be thrashed out in a full-blown trial. 11. This Court would have on the basis of what is considered hereinabove rejected the petition. But the subsequent act to all 60 these is by the concerned Court where it takes cognizance of the offences. The bald, laconic and cryptic order of the concerned Court is what merits the partial entertainment of the petition. As observed hereinabove, there are statements made by the prosecution witnesses, there are statements made by the victim. While cognizance of the offence, the concerned Court ought to have applied its mind and then issued process. 12. The order of cognizance is quoted supra. The concerned Courts would take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. issue summons/process to the accused. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. It reads as follows: “204. Issue of process.—(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be— (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. 61 (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87.” Section 204 requires sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, which would mean the Court has to examine existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and then proceed to issue process. This act, undoubtedly requires application of mind, on the part of the learned Magistrate or the Court of Sessions as the case would be, as the provision itself mandates existence of sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore, it can be only on perusal of the material on record and consideration thereof, not an order which depicts the Court to be a post office to the prosecution. 13. The interpretation of Section 204 and whether an order of taking cognizance and issuance of process, needs to bear application of mind or not, need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The answer lies in the judgments relied 62 on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID has also placed reliance upon plethora of judgments to contend that the order of taking cognizance need not bear application of mind, when it is being taken upon a Police report. The judgments so relied by the learned counsel for respondent/CID, are as follows: (i) STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. MOHD. KHALID & OTHERS – (1995) 1 SCC 684 – Paras 78 & 81; (ii) ANIL SARAN v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER - (1995) 6 SCC 142 – para 5; (iii) BHAGAT RAM v. SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS – (2004) 11 SCC 622 – para 4; (iv) AJITH KAMAR PALIT v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER – 1962 SCC OnLine SC 80 – para 19; (v) R.R. CHARI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – 1951 SCC 250 – paras 6 and 15; (vi) JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER – (2004) 4 SCC 432 – Para 10; (vii) BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANOTHER – (2012) 5 SCC 424 – paras 13 & 17; (viii) RAJENDRA RAJORIYA v. JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND ANOTHER – (2018) 17 SCC 234 – para 16; (ix) AJAY KUMAR PARMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN – (2012) 12 SCC 406 -Para 13; 63 (x) RASHMI KUMAR v. MAHESH KUMAR BHADA – (1997) 2 SCC 397 – para 14 and (xi) STATE OF BIHAR v. RAJENDRA AGARWALLA – (1996)8 SCC 164 – para 5. There can no qualm about the principles so laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments. But, much water has flown after the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, by way of elucidation by the Apex Court, on the issue of orders of cognizance and issuance of process. I deem it appropriate to note the entire spectrum of law, right from 1951 till this day, with regard to the interpretation by the Apex Court on orders of taking cognizance and issuance of summons/process. 14(a). JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN1:- “10. The contention urged is that though the trial court was directed to consider the entire material on record including the final report before deciding whether the process should be issued against the appellant or not, yet the entire material was not considered. From perusal of order passed by the Magistrate it cannot be said that the entire material was not taken into consideration. The order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is a well-written order. The order not only refers to the statements recorded by the police during investigation which led to the filing of final report by the police and the 1(2004) 4 SCC 432 64 statements of witnesses recorded by the Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code but also sets out with clarity the principles required to be kept in mind at the stage of taking cognizance and reaching a prima facie view. At this stage, the Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled that notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. The investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. (Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 788].)” (Emphasis supplied) 14(b). BHUSHAN KUMAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)2:- “11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471] (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression “cognizance” was explained by this Court as “it merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.” It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the 2 (2012) 5 SCC 424 65 application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code. … … … 18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi [(2009) 2 SCC 147 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679] this Court, in para 23, held as under: (SCC p. 154) “23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.” 19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned order.” (Emphasis supplied) 14(c). STATE OF GUJARAT v. AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA3:– “16. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and the Magistrate is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the 3 (2019) 20 SCC 539 66 accused. It is fairly well settled that when issuing summons, the Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Reliance was placed upon Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 11-13) “11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471] (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression “cognizance” was explained by this Court as “it merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.' It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code. 12. A “summons” is a process issued by a court calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his legal obligation to appear before the Magistrate as a response to violation of law. In other words, the summons will announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person and the date and time on which the person must appear in court. A person who is summoned is legally bound to appear before the court on the given 67 date and time. Wilful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for contempt of court. 13. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued.” (emphasis supplied) ... … …. 21. In para 21 of Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , this Court has made a fine distinction between taking cognizance based upon charge-sheet filed by the police under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC and held as under : (SCC p. 430) “21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that “a complaint of facts which constitute such offence”. Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected.” 22. In summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The court is not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be 68 adopted for summoning the accused under Section 204 CrPC is not the same at the time of framing the charge. For issuance of summons under Section 204 CrPC, the expression used is “there is sufficient ground for proceeding…”; whereas for framing the charges, the expression used in Sections 240 and 246 IPC is “there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence…”. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 CrPC, detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the police has filed charge-sheet along with the materials thereon may be considered as sufficient ground for proceeding for issuance of summons under Section 204 CrPC. 23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge- sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is 69 sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file. (Emphasis supplied) 14(d). SRI S.C.JAYACHANDRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4:- “12. I have perused the aforesaid judgments. By applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments stated supra and on perusal of the case on hand, the trial Court while taking cognizance and issuing process, has passed the following order: “The Karnataka Lokayuktha City Division, Bengaluru have filed the charge sheet against the accused, that the accused has made total assets of ₹2,27,13,936/-. And his total expenditure is ₹1,71,95,040/-. The total of assets and expenditure comes to ₹3,99,08,976/-. The income of the accused and his family from all sources is ₹2,02,50,007/-. The accused from 1-02-1985 to 18-12-2008 working as Chief Engineer of Hemavathi Project, Goruru, Hassan as on 18-12-2008, has made disproportionate assets of total ₹1,96,58,969/- i.e., 97.08% and committed offence punishable u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution has produced the fresh Sanction dated 20-03-2019, authorization dated 17-12-2008, F.I.R., Source Report, P.F., Panchanama dated 23-12-2008, Panchanama dated 18-12-2008, property documents, Panchanama dated 18-12-2008 and other documents. 3. Perused the documents. 4 Criminal Revision Petition No.1479 of 2019/29 decided 18th May 2020 70 4. Found prima facie case, Cognizance is taken. Register the case as Special Case, and issue summons to accused returnable by 27-05-2019.” …. …. …. 14. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest dictum stated supra, here in this case, the Lokayuktha Police filed the charge sheet and the Trial Court while taking cognizance need not pass detailed order and hence issuing process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C by taking cognizance under Section 190(a)(b) of Cr.P.C would attract. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court while issuing process against the petitioner and it cannot be said that there is no application of mind by the trial Court. Even otherwise, the trial Court considered the documents and proceeded to issue process after satisfaction of the same Judge who passed the order of discharge on the earlier occasion. Therefore, the arguments of learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in favour of Lokayuktha Police and against the accused. …. …. …. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial against the accused and dispose of the mater in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) 14(e). PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA5:- “C.5. Cognizance order and non-application of mind 76. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the Special Judge taking cognizance has not sufficiently 5 (2021) 19 SCC 62 71 demonstrated application of mind to the material placed before him. To substantiate this contention, the appellant relied on the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] , Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] and Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. [Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 430 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 806] The respondent argued that this Court has made a distinction on application of mind by the Judge for the purpose of taking cognizance based on a police report on the one hand and a private complaint under Section 200CrPC on the other, and that the requirement of a demonstrable application of mind in the latter case is higher. For this purpose, the counsel relied on this Court's decisions in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 872] and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] . … … …. 85. Moreover, Kurian Joseph, J. writing for the two-Judge Bench has clearly taken note of the difference between Sections 190(1)(a) and 190(1)(b) : (Mehmood Ul Rehman case [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , SCC p. 430, para 21) “21. Under Section 190(1)(b)CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c)CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a)CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that “a complaint of facts which constitute such offence”. Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 72 190(1)(a)CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected.” 86. In Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] , a complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of offences under Sections 240, 467, 468 and 471IPC. The Magistrate directed the police to register the case and investigate it. The Magistrate thus, instead of following the procedure laid down under Section 200 or 202CrPC, ordered that the matter be investigated and a report be submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code. Based on the police report, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. A two- Judge Bench of this Court observed that the Magistrate must apply his mind before taking cognizance of the offence. However, no observation was made that the cognizance order based on a police report needs to be “well-reasoned”. On the facts of the case, the Court held that since the cognizance order was not placed before the High Court, it did not have the opportunity to review if the Magistrate had applied his mind while taking cognizance. The matter was thus remanded back to the High Court for it to peruse the documents and then decide the Section 482 petition afresh. 87. It must be noted that the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] and Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] arose in the context of a private complaint. Though the decision in Sunil Bharti Mittal [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] arose from a police report, it is evident from the narration of facts in the earlier part of this judgment that in that case, the charge-sheet had not named the Chief Executive Officers of the Telecom Companies as accused. The Magistrate, however, furnished the reason that the CEO was an alter ego of the Telecom Company which, as this Court noted in its judgment was a “reverse application” of the alter ego doctrine. 73 88. Similarly, the cognizance order in Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] was based on a police report. However, this Court remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the validity of the cognizance order and did not review the Magistrate's satisfaction before issuing the cognizance order. Therefore, none of the above judgments referred to support the contention of the appellant. Though all the above judgments mention that the Magistrate needs to apply his mind to the materials placed before him before taking cognizance, they have been differentiated on facts from the present case as unlike the present case where cognizance was taken based on the SIT report, in those cases cognizance was taken based on a complaint. The difference in the standard of proof for application of mind with reference to cognizance based on a complaint and police report has been briefly discussed in Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] and Fakhruddin Ahmad [Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 478] . A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 876] laid down the law on the difference of the standard of review of the application of mind by the Judge while taking cognizance based on a police report and a private complaint. … … … 108.8. Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material.” (Emphasis supplied) 74 14(f). SRI RATAN BABULAL LATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA6:– “The Apex Court in terms of clause (viii) of the aforesaid conclusions holds that since cognizance is taken based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the Judge to issue a completely reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Judge has applied his mind to the material.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH RAM supra holds that the Magistrate is not expected to consider entire material while taking cognizance; it should be a well written order and bear application of mind. The Magistrate is not required to advert to whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. In the case of BHUSHAN KUMAR supra, the Apex Court again reiterates that if cognizance is taken under Section 190 of the Code, application of judicial mind to the averments of the complaint is necessary. The Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter or not and whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. In AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA supra the Apex Court holds that it is not necessary to pass a 6 Criminal Petition No.1367 of 2022 decided on 10th May 2022 75 detailed order when the Magistrate or the concerned Court has taken cognizance on a final report. The same goes with the order of the coordinate Bench in S.C.JAYACHANDRA supra. The Apex Court in the case of PRADEEP S.WODEYAR at para 108.8 supra holds that the Court is not obliged to pass a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind. This Court in RATAN BABULAL LATH’s case considers all these judgments and holds that the order of taking cognizance did bear application of mind. The aforesaid are the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID. The subsequent elucidation: 16. The Apex Court, in the case of SACHIN GARG v. STATE OF U.P.7, has held as follows: “20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records 7 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 76 the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has held that while it is true that at the stage of issuing summons, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prim facie case for taking cognizance. The duty is to record that there is sufficient ground. The Apex Court observes that learned Magistrate’s order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. Therefore, the Apex Court was holding that satisfaction of the Magistrate to issue summons was imperative. Satisfaction is discernible only if the order would bear application of mind. The 77 Apex Court, again, in the case of SHARIF AHMED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH8 has held as follows: “6. We would like to elaborate on certain aspects, as submission of the chargesheet is for taking cognisance and summoning of the accused by the Magistrate, which stages are of considerable importance and significance. ... …. …. 14. In the context of the present issue, it would be apt to refer to Section 190 and Section 204 of the Code, along with the provisions relating to contents of charge, namely, Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218 of the Code, which read as under: “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. xxxxxx 204. Issue of process.—(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be— (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or 8 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726 78 (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87. 15. On the submission of the police report, Dablu Kujur (supra) refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police10, and discusses the power and the role of the Magistrate when he receives the police report and the options available to him, in the following words: “14. When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options : (i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options : (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may 79 disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.” It is in this context that the provisions of Sections 190 and 204 of the Code become important. Clause (a) of Section 190 states that the Magistrate can take cognisance of an offence on receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. Clause (b) relates to a situation where the Magistrate receives a police report carrying such facts, i.e., facts which constitute such offence. In Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar11 this Court referred to the options available to the Magistrate on how to proceed in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, and held: “11… The position is, therefore, now well settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issue of process to the accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. (See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 306 : AIR 1989 SC 885].) 12. The informant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the Magistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for proceeding 80 further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is material for proceeding against some and there are insufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would certainly be prejudiced as the first information report lodged becomes wholly or partially ineffective. This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police held that where the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, notice to the informant and grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes mandatory. As indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for issue of a notice in that regard. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that application of mind is imperative if taking of cognizance and issuing of process is an action that the concerned Court would take. The Apex Court considers all earlier judgments, all of which are relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID. In the later judgment, the Apex Court in the case of VIKAS CHANDRA v. STATE OF U.P. UTTAR PRADESH.9 has held as follows: “14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next question to be considered is whether a summons issued by a Magistrate can be interfered with in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. In the decisions in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pepsi Foods Ltd.'s case (supra) this Court held that a petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for 92024 SCC OnLine SC 1534 81 exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. In this context, we think it appropriate to state that one should understand that ‘taking cognizance’, empowered under Section 190, Cr. P.C., and ‘issuing process’, empowered under Section 204, Cr. P.C., are different and distinct. (See the decision in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I.). … … …. 16. In the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, this Court held that the settled position for summoning of an accused is that the Court has to see the prima facie evidence. This Court went on to hold that the ‘prima facie evidence’ means the evidence sufficient for summoning the accused and not the evidence sufficient to warrant conviction. The inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C., is limited only to ascertain whether on the material placed by the complainant a prima facie case was made out for summoning the accused or not. 17. In an earlier decision in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, this Court laid down certain conditions whereunder a complaint can be quashed invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C., thus:— “(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; 82 (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.” … … … 20. As per the impugned judgment the High Court went on to consider and held thus:— “As per mandate of this Section, there must be explicit or implicit abetment or some overt act indicative or suggestive of fact that some instigation was given for committing suicide and the applicant was having an interest in it. Nothing has surfaced, which may reflect on the mindset of the applicant that he ever intended the consequence that the deceased would commit suicide and with that view in mind, he stopped payment of salary. Had it been the actual position then obviously the suicide note must have whispered about that particular aspect or it would have at least alluded to that situation, but on careful perusal of the suicide note it explicit that the deceased himself was bent upon committing suicide in case the salary was not drawn in his favour. But under circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant was conscious of that position and knowing the same situation he insisted that he would not pay the salary in question. The trial court, however, ignoring all these legal aspects took cognizance of the offence by rejecting the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and issued process against the applicant by way of summoning. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Criminal proceedings of impugned order dated 05.04.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No. 1478 of 2012, Vikas v. Ram Babu, Case Crime No. C-2 of 2005, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Alhaganj, District Shahjahanpur by which the applicant has been summoned to face the trial is hereby quashed.” (Emphasis supplied) 83 The Apex Court, again, in the case of JM LABORATORIES V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH10 has held as follows: “8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled “INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh”, we have observed thus: “33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons. 34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra): “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof 10 2025 SCC online SC 208 84 and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. 36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435. 37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (supra), has observed thus: “38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9, which reads thus: “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 85 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” 39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra). 40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of SANJAY DUTT V. STATE OF HARYANA11 has held as follows: “15. When jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC, the Court concerned should remain vigilant & apply its mind carefully before taking cognizance of a complaint of the present nature.” (Emphasis supplied) 11 2025 SCC OnLine SC 32 86 The Apex Court, in all the aforesaid judgments, has followed the judgment in the case of SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL V. CBI12. Since the Three Judge Bench decision has been quoted in all the aforesaid judgments and followed, I deem it appropriate to notice the same at this juncture. The elucidation of the Apex Court reads as follows: “51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. … ... … 53. However, the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, 12 (2015)4 SCC 609 87 though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” (Emphasis supplied) On a coalensce of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is, that the order of taking of cognizance and issuance of process should bear application of mind. Section 190(1)(a) deals with cognizance being taken on a complaint which would be a private complaint presented before the concerned Court. Section 190(1)(b) deals with cognizance taken on a police report which would be a final report/charge sheet filed before the concerned Court. Therefore, cognizance can be taken only under Section 190 of the CrPC. Section 204 deals with issue of process. 17. After the concerned Court takes cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C., process is issued under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) thereof mandates that, if in the opinion of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, it shall issue process. Therefore, the words 88 ‘there is sufficient ground’ assumes all importance. The necessity of recording reasons for existence of sufficient ground is thus imperative and those reasons are discernible only, if they are recorded in writing, which would reflect application of mind, on the part of the Court taking cognizance and issuing summons. Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are all overwhelming to the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID, as all the judgments that are quoted hereinabove, fallen from the arsenal of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are of 2024 and 2025, and they consider the very issue as against the judgments which are little earlier cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID and the law as laid down by the Apex Court is that order of taking cognizance and issuing summons must bear application of mind. 18. With the law being thus, I now deem it appropriate to re-notice the order taking cognizance in the case at hand. It reads as follows: “04-07-2024 89 Case called out. Learned Special Public Prosecutor present. Heard and perused the office note and also perused the police report and the documents submitted along with the police report including complaint, FIR, statements of witnesses and the documents. On perusal of police report and documents produced along with police, there are prima facie material placed records so as to proceed against the accused and also to issue process against the accused. Therefore, on being satisfied with prima facie materials placed records, exercising the powers U/s 190(1) (b) r/w Section 193 of CrPC, cognizance is taken for the offences punishable Under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 354(A), 204 and 214 r/w Sec.37 of IPC. Office is directed to register this case as Special C.c. in criminal register. Office to attend regarding compliance U/s 35(1) of POCSO Act i.e., securing statement U/s 164 of CrPC, Medical report, FSL Report, Property from the complainant Police. Issue summons to the accused persons R/by 15-07-2024.” (Emphasis added) The Court observes ‘perused the charge sheet and all the documents’. On perusal of the same, the Court is satisfied that prima facie case has been committed by the accused as alleged. 90 Therefore, cognizance is taken under Section 190(1)(b) and summons issued ostensibly under Section 204 of the CrPC. The order of taking cognizance and issuing of process does not bear even a semblance of application of mind. It runs completely counter to the necessity under Section 190(1)(b) or Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. as elucidated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 19. The learned senior counsel for the respondent/CID submits that in 80% of cases the Courts would take cognizance in the same manner while that would not impress this Court to dismiss the petition and permit perpetration of irregularity or illegality by the concerned Court, just because it has become a habit to take cognizance and issue summons in this manner. Not for nothing is the elucidation by the Apex Court in regard to existence of sufficient grounds and application of judicial mind. The Court is expected to record reasons for taking of cognizance. Though the reasons need not be so elaborate when it records framing of charges or conviction, nonetheless, it must bear application of mind to set further proceedings in motion, as taking of cognizance or issuance 91 of process has some judicial sanctity. It cannot be frolicsome act on the part of the learned Magistrate who would take cognizance and issue summons. 20. If the afore-quoted order of taking of cognizance is considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as to the requirement of application of mind, the order of cognizance impugned, inter alia, would be rendered unsustainable, while it is not the same with regard to the other submissions. The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that there is no indication of the cognizance being taken against a particular person. It is his submission that Sections 204 and 214 of the IPC do not get attracted against the petitioner at all. Be those submissions as they are. In the light of the order of taking cognizance being found to be blatant non-application of mind and the resultant obliteration, I do not find any necessity to consider the submissions qua the offences at this stage. Suffice it so say, that the learned Sessions Judge shall now look into the entire material that is before him and pass necessary orders on the final report, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of 92 the order. It is needless to observe that the order should bear application of mind and application of mind in an order is discernible, only if reasons are recorded in writing, failing which, the order would depict an inscrutable face of the sphinx. 21. For the aforesaid reasons the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court dated 4-07-2024 passed in Crime No.9 of 2024 (Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024) qua accused No.1 stands obliterated. (iii) The crime, the investigation and the final report, all remain intact. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders on the final report so placed before it by the CID, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. (v) It is made clear that this Court has not answered any of the contentions so advanced by both the learned senior counsel, except the submission with regard to the order of taking cognizance. (vi) All other contentions shall remain open. The petitioner is at liberty to avail all such remedy, as is available in law, at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. 93 IN WRIT PETITION No.18538 OF 2024: 22. The subject petition is preferred by accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Spl.C.C.1283 of 2024. The companion petition is of the accused No.1. The complaint so filed is common, only the allegations are different against these accused. They are for the offences punishable under Sections 204 and 214 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 23. The order of taking of cognizance qua all the petitioners is common. The order of cognizance is quoted in the companion petition and extensively dealt with. Therefore, for the very reasons rendered in W.P.No.15522 of 2024, the present petition also deserves to follow suit. 24. The order of cognizance being common and the same being found fault with in the companion petition, no further reason need be assigned separately in the case at hand. 25. Therefore, for the reasons so rendered in W.P.No.15522 of 2024, the subject petition also deserves to succeed in part, with the same order becoming applicable to the case at hand. 94 26. For the aforesaid reasons the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court dated 4-07-2024 passed in Crime No.9 of 2024 (Special C.C.No.1283 of 2024) qua accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 also stands obliterated. (iii) The crime, the investigation and the final report, all remain intact. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders on the final report so placed before it, by the CID, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. (v) It is made clear that this Court has not answered any of the contentions so advanced by both the learned senior counsel, except the submission with regard to the order of taking cognizance. (vi) All other contentions shall remain open. The petitioners are at liberty to avail all such remedy, as is available in law, at the appropriate stage, before the appropriate forum. Consequently, pending applications if any in both the petitions, shall also stand disposed. Bkp/CT:SS ___________sd/___________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ARUNA Y M v. TEH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING DEPARMENT (CID)

Judgment text