The High Court of Karnataka has said that the police could not have registered a First Information Report (FIR) based on a counter-complaint lodged by Basavaprabhu Swami, in charge seer of Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutt, Chitradurga, alleging that some persons had conspired to tarnish the image of the Mutt and the seer Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, by coaxing two young girls to make unfounded allegations against the seer.
The court said that the complaint of Basavaprabhu Swami at best could be placed before the court, which is trying the two cases of sexual assault filed against the seer on the basis of the statement of the witnesses, to counter allegations made against the seer by the particular witnesses.
Justice R. Devdas passed the order while quashing the FIR registered against S.K. Basavarajan, a former administrator of the Mutt, his wife Sowbhaygya Basavarajan, and others on the allegation of criminal conspiracy, extortion, cheating, and inducing minor girls to have illicit intercourse with another person.
The in-charge seer had lodged the complaint based on the social media audio clip about the alleged conversation between a complainant and a witness on plans to lodge false complaint against the seer.
If the trial court comes to a conclusion that witnesses and a complainant in sexual offences cases had given false information against the seer or that the petitioners conspired with witnesses/complainant or any other person to falsely implicate the seer of the Mutt, then it is for the trial court to take a call as to whether action has to be initiated against such persons in terms of the provisions of the Cr.PC, the High Court observed.
The High Court said that there was clear bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) for the magistrate to take cognisance of the offence as the allegations made in the in-charge seer’s complaint was pertaining to the two cases registered against the seer and against the witnesses and complainants in those cases.
‘Attempt to derail trial’
While observing that the court is of the firm opinion that the proceedings initiated at the behest of Basavaprabhu Swami is a deliberate attempt, calculated to derail the trial against the seer of the Mutt, Justice Devdas said it is the bounden duty of the High Court to insulate the criminal cases [registered against the seer] from outside interferences.
The High Court termed the conduct of Chitradurga police as ‘dubious’ for misdescribing or putting a wrong label of the offences, only to facilitate registration of a cognizable offence, although a plain reading of the written complaint given by Basavaprabhu Swami does not make out any offence in Sections 384 (extortion) or 366A of IPC (inducing minor girls to have illicit intercourse with another person).
Stating that witnesses and complaints in the sexual offences cases cannot be made to justify their allegations in two separate proceedings, the High Court said that the magistrate concerned too has proceeded to take cognisance, mechanically, in this case unmindful of the grave consequences that befall the persons targeted in the complaint lodged by the in-charge seer.
