City Crime Branch Can Investigate Cases Registered With Local Police Stations, Their Chargesheet Qualifies As Final Report: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the City Crime Branch can investigate a case registered with the city police station and filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation by the CCB police amounts to a final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC.

Justice K Natarajan thus upheld a government notification dated 25-02-2021, appointing CCB police officers and conferring on them power to exercise power of a Station House Officer of all police stations in Bangalore City.

“Once the power of investigation is exercised by the Police officer as Superior of a Police station, in view of deputing the police in the CCB, they can exercise all the powers and functions of a superior investigation officer of police station and they have power to file charge sheet or final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. in view of Section 36 of Cr.P.C.”

The Court added that once the CCB Police officer investigates the matter as a superior officer of the police station, he automatically becomes an officer in-charge of the police stations per the Karnataka Police Act and he can exercise the power under Section 36 of Cr.P.C

"Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the State Government has no power to issue such notification, without seeking amendment to the Cr.P.C. on the floor of the assembly and in the manner known to law, cannot be acceptable.”

The court was dealing with a petition filed by Dittu Mehta and his family members who had approached the court seeking to quash the criminal case registered by his estranged wife under sections 323, 354(A)(B), 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The respondent-police had initially registered FIR for the said offences and later, on the direction of the Commissioner of Police, the investigation was taken by the CCB police, and they filed a charge sheet.

The primary contention of the petitioners was that the Commissioner of Police can not exercise the power under the Karnataka Police Act for transferring the investigation to the CCB police in respect of criminal cases registered at Basavanagudi police.

Further, for the purpose of taking cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can take cognizance on the police report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. by the officer in-charge of the police station, but the CCB is not a police station.

Therefore, the Government notification dated 25.02.2021 cannot be considered as an order for transferring the investigation and filing charge sheet by the CCB police.

Moreover, as per Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 2(r) and 2(s) of Cr.P.C, the officer in the CCB cannot be considered as Station House Officer and his report cannot be considered as a report under Section 2(r) and Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.

The petitioners also argued that prior to filing of the complaint, a divorce petition was filed by accused No.1 against respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant and the de-facto complainant also filed a divorce petition and the evidence of the petitioner-accused No.1 was not challenged in cross examination and the de-facto complainant - respondent No.2 has stated no objection to grant decree of divorce in favour of accused No.1.

Thus it was contended that the allegation made in the complaint as well as in the divorce petition by the accused clearly reveals that there was allegation made by the accused against respondent - de-facto complainant, was cruelty which was admitted by her. Thus the averments made by the de-facto complainant in the complaint for cruelty on her and the charge sheet are not sustainable.

The bench referred to Apex court judgment in the case of State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabha (2016)4 SCC 102, where it has been held that the Commissioner has power to appoint the superior officer for investigating the matter.

The bench said

“Here, in this case, the Commissioner of Police has referred to the CCB police officer for investigating the matter and to file a charge sheet. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet filed by the CCB is unsustainable under the law and the Commissioner of Police does not have power to refer the complaint for investigation to the CCB police holds no water.”

The court perused the file pertaining to the issuance of impugned notification by the State Government.

It was found that the CCB police was created on 03.09.1971 consisting of a record section, special squad, cycle squad and totally 2 circle inspectors, 8 sub inspectors, 20 head constables and 12 constables were deputed and the ACP was in charge of the CCB. Later, further notification was issued by the State Government on 10.02.1994 by deputing the additional officers.

On 13.11.2002, further notification 56 was issued categorising the crimes and appointing the DCP and ACP and other police officers. Later, in the year 2004, an investigation officer was appointed. On 27.03.2004, the strength of the investigation officer was increased by reorganisation of CCB by appointing more ACPs. Finally, the present notification dated 25.02.2021 has been issued.

It observed

“On careful reading of these orders from the year 1971 and subsequent dates, appointing the officers from the rank of circle inspectors to the rank of police inspectors, ACP and DCP to exercise the power under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. for investigating the matter in the manner exercised by the police officer of the particular Police station, therefore, the notification issued by the State on 25.02.2021 cannot be said that it is prepared overnight empowering the CCB police for investigation.”

The court pointed out that, in contrast, the CCB has been operational for the past 50 years. Officers within the CCB have consistently been assigned to investigate cases registered in various police stations throughout Bangalore. This arrangement is sanctioned by the notification, and these officers are recognized as superior officers for the police stations within the Bangalore City Commissionerate, specifically for the purpose of conducting investigations.

It was further noted that the State by exercising the power under the Karnataka Police Act appointed the Commissioner of Police under Section 7 of Karnataka Police Act, and he, being the superior officer of the entire police station in the Bangalore city, was empowered to superintendence over all the police stations under Section 7(2) of Karnataka Police Act.

“I am of the view that the notification dated 25.02.2021 is only an order in respect of clarification stating that the police officers working in the CCB are the superior officers in respect of all Police station within the limit of Police Commissionerate of Bangalore city and they can exercise the same powers as the officer of in charge of Police station under Section 36 of Cr.P.C.”

Thus the Court opined that the investigation conducted by the CCB police is in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet filed by them is sustainable.

Therefore, the plea filed by accused No.1 challenging the notification dated 25.02.2021 was also liable to be dismissed holding that the CCB police are empowered to file final report/charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.

Taking into account the complaint and material on record the bench said

“There is abundant material placed on record to show the involvement of the accused persons in harassing the married woman-complainant and demanding additional dowry as well as cruelty on the complainant, which falls within the meaning of the for the offences punishable.”

The Court also rejected the husband;s contention that the allegation made by him in the divorce petition against the respondent - de-facto complainant on the ground of cruelty has not been challenged and on the other hand, she has accepted the same and she also stated no objection for decreeing the divorce petition.

The court found that both the accused and the complainant had filed divorce cases based on cruelty, but the Family Court hadn't decided on these cases yet. Importantly, the court pointed out that the cruelty mentioned in the divorce cases was not the same as the cruelty defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In simpler terms, the court clarified that the issues raised in the divorce cases didn't match the criteria for cruelty outlined in criminal law.

Finally it said that the fact that the complainant hasn't cross-examined accused No.1 in the ongoing divorce case, and the Family Court hasn't ruled on petitioner No.1's claims of cruelty, cannot be a reason to quash the charge sheet in this criminal case.

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocates C.V. Nagesh, Sadesh J Chouta, Advocates Raghavendra K Gaurav N, for Petitioners.

Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol a/w HCGP Shankar H S for R1, R2, R8.

Advocate Melanie Sebastian FOR R7.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

Case Title: Ditul Mehta & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2450 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11718 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order