NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW-II, TRIMESTER VI

AN ANALYSIS OF

Siva Vallabhanenei & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2015)2 SCC 90

SUBMITTED TO - SUBMITTED BY-

Ms. DIVYA SALIM HIMANSHU AHIRWAR

ASST. PROFESSOR 2018BALLB96

1|Page
 CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................................3

MATERIAL FACTS....................................................................................................................4

ISSUE.............................................................................................................................................6

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER-.............................................................................................7

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT-..........................................................................................8

COURT VIEW –...........................................................................................................................9

DECISION –................................................................................................................................10

Part 2............................................................................................................................................11

Analysis of the case......................................................................................................................11

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................12

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people .I would
like to acknowledge and extent my heartfelt gratitude to Director (DR.) V. Vijayakumar
and Mrs Divya Salim for guiding me throughout the development of this paper into a
coherent whole by providing helpful insight and sharing their brilliant expertise .I would
also like to thank the official of the Gyan Mandir library, NLIU BHOPAL for helping me
to find the appropriate research material for this study. I am deep indebted to my parents,
senior and friend for all the moral support and encouragement.

3|Page
 MATERIAL FACTS

1. Four criminal petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Karnataka by the
petitioners. Criminal Petition No.957 of 2011 was filed by A3 praying that order
dated 4/12/2010 passed in C.C. No.204 of 2010 taking cognizance of offences under
Sections 3761, 3772, 4203, 1144, 2015, 4176 r/w. Sections 4157, 506(1)8 and 120-B9 of
the IPC be set aside and further proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed. Criminal
Petition No.4582 of 2012 was filed by A1 for setting aside order dated 18/6/2012
passed in C.C. No.204 of 2010 on the application filed by the prosecution under
Section 53-A r/w. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.")
directing A1 to give his blood for test, his voice sample for analysis and subject
himself to medical examination. Criminal Petition No.4090 of 2011 was filed by A4
and A5 and Criminal Petition No.234 of 2011 was filed by A2 praying for quashing
the charge-sheet filed in C.C. No.204 of 2010 and for setting aside order dated
4/12/2010 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 376, 377, 420, 201, 417 r/w.
Sections 419, 506(1) and 120-B of the IPC.

2. All the above petitions were disposed of by the Karnataka High Court by the
impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused have filed the present
special leave petitions. As these special leave petitions challenge the same order and
arise out of the same case, we are disposing them of by this common order.

1
Punishment for rape
2
 Unnatural offences.—Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
3
 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
4
 Abettor present when offence is committed.—Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be
punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence
of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.
5
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
6
 Punishment for cheating.—Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
7
Cheating
8
 Punishment for criminal intimidation.
9
Punishment of criminal conspiracy

4|Page
3. Dealing with the aforesaid criminal petitions filed by the petitioners, the High Court
opined that if at all the statements of the charge-sheet witnesses and other documents
are not supporting the charges framed against the accused-petitioners, they are at
liberty to take advantage of the same for seeking their discharge in the pending
criminal proceedings.

4. While dismissing the criminal petitions, the High Court directed A1 to cooperate with
the investigating officer to get his blood samples drawn from qualified doctors and
also to take his voice samples for the purpose of investigation. He was further directed
to voluntarily appear before the qualified doctors identified by the investigating
officer to subject himself to medical test on the day and date fixed by the said
qualified doctors to conduct such test on him as the doctors deem fit pursuant to the
order dated 18/6/2012 passed by the trial judge in C.C. No.204 of 2010. The High
Court made it clear that if A1 fails to comply with the said order, the investigating
officer shall be at liberty to take A1 into custody for the limited purpose of taking his
blood samples, voice test and subjecting him to medical test and shall release him
after completion of the tests.

5. The High Court also dismissed the application filed by one Smt. Arathi Rao, a
complainant for impleading her in each of the four criminal petitions, observing that
the presence of impleading applicant is not necessary at this stage and granted her
liberty to make an application before the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.204 of 2010.
Finally, the High Court observed.

5|Page
 ISSUES

One Nithya Dharmananda @ Lenin filed F.I.R. No.112 of 2010 on 4/3/2010 at P.S.
Central Crime Branch, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Sections 295-A,
376, 377, 420, 506(1) r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC") against
Nithyananda Swamy @ Tiru Rajashekaran ("A1"), Gopal Reddy Sheelum @ Nithya
Bhaktananda ("A2"), Siva Vallabhaneni @ Nithya Sachitananda ("A3"), Dhanashekaran
@ Nithya Sadananda ("A4"), Ragini @ Ma Nithya Sachitananda w/o. Siva Sachidananda
("A5") and others. As the incident had occurred in Karnataka, the case was transferred to
Karnataka for investigation. On 26/11/2010, Final Report in C.C. No.204 of 2010 was
filed by Bidai Police under Sections 376, 377, 420, 417, 201, 114, r/w. Sections 415,
506(1) and 120-B of the IPC. On 4/12/2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara
District took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners.

6|Page
 ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

The first and perhaps the main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
High Court did not give the petitioners a fair opportunity of hearing which has resulted in
miscarriage of justice. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel submitted that the
matter was listed by the High Court on a motion made by the respondents without serving
a copy or notice on the petitioners; that the High Court rejected the prayer for adjournment
made by the petitioners' advocate on record; that the High Court did not even pass over the
matter and the impugned order came to be passed mechanically behind the back of the
petitioners and their counsel and, therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter to the
High Court for fresh hearing. This submission was adopted by all the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners.

It is urged by learned counsel for A1 that application dated 18/6/2012 filed by the
prosecution under Section 53-A read with Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was not tenable
inasmuch as the accused was earlier medically examined. It is submitted that Section 53-A
of the Cr.P.C. speaks of examination of person accused of rape, by medical practitioner. It
must be done immediately after the arrest. Direction issued to A1 to submit himself to
medical examination is illegal. We feel that this submission is raised to avoid medical
examination. It is the prime duty of the accused to cooperate with the investigating
agency. It is pointed out by the State counsel that Section 53-A does not put fetters on the
investigating agency to get the accused examined at a later stage. It is submitted that
earlier examination was conducted to find out whether there are any marks of violence on
the accused. We do not want to comment on this. If the accused are entitled to get any
benefit because of the delayed medical examination, they can surely urge that point in the
trial. But they must submit themselves to medical examination. This submission is,
therefore, rejected.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for A2 that on 14/1/2011, the prosecution made an
application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara District stating that on
27/11/2010, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 376, 377, 420,
114, 212, 201, 417 r/w. Sections 415, 506(1) and 120-B of the IPC and cognizance was

7|Page
taken under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. It was further stated in the application that
cognizance of offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC was not taken against A2
due to oversight. It was further stated in the application that after going through the order-
sheet, A2 has filed criminal petition before the High Court to quash the charge-sheet filed
against him and, therefore, cognizance of offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC
be taken against A2. Counsel pointed out that it was improper for the investigating agency
to file such application during the pendency of the criminal petition. Moreover, on this
application, on 17/1/2011, learned Magistrate passed order of taking cognizance without
giving any reasons. Counsel submitted that it is well settled that at the time of taking
cognizance, learned Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts before him. Learned
Magistrate's order taking cognizance shows non-application of mind. Counsel urged that
there is absolutely no material on record to show that A2 harboured any offender. In this
connection, he drew our attention to Section 52-A of the IPC which defines the term
`harbour' as "supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms,
ammunition or means or conveyance or the assisting a person by any means, whether of
the same kind as those enumerated in Section 52-A or not, to evade apprehension".
Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that A2 has indulged in any
of the above activities. In reply, Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the State submitted
that in view of the fact that the charge-sheet is already filed, if A2 is aggrieved by the
charge under Section 212 of the IPC levelled against him, he can file a discharge
application before the concerned court and on this count, the charge-sheet cannot be
quashed.

8|Page
 ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT

This submission was strenuously opposed by Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State. He submitted that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Affidavit
in reply is filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Enquiries Squad, CID, to
which our attention is drawn by Mr. Rao. In the affidavit, it is stated that the above
allegations are totally malicious; that the High Court had time and again given full
audience to the senior advocates and advocates on record of the petitioners and informed
the petitioners that the matter is stuck at admission stage for last so many years and,
therefore, it intends to decide the petitions. In the affidavit, the deponent has set out the
manner in which according to him the petitioners have delayed the disposal of the matters.
It is pointed out that even appointment of public prosecutor was challenged and stay order
was obtained which was operating for a considerable time.

It is pointed out that the accused filed Criminal Petition Nos.4547 of 2014 and 4560 of
2014 before the High Court and voluntarily gave an undertaking that they would appear
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanagara. On the basis of this voluntary
undertaking, the High Court by its order dated 1/8/2014 set aside the order issuing non-
bailable warrants against the accused and A1 was directed to appear before the
Superintendent, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore on 6/8/2014. All the accused were directed
to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18/8/2014. The said order is not
challenged by the accused and, therefore, the contentions raised by the accused that they
were not heard and that the impugned order was passed mechanically, must be rejected. In
support of his submissions, counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.10 wherein this Court has held that "the
principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing recorded
in the judgment of the court are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict
such statements by affidavit or other evidence". In reply, Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel
for the State submitted that in view of the fact that the charge-sheet is already filed, if A2
is aggrieved by the charge under Section 212 of the IPC levelled against him, he can file a
discharge application before the concerned court and on this count, the charge-sheet
10
((1982) 2 SCC 463),

9|Page
cannot be quashed. Counsel for the State made a categorical statement that he was unable
to show any other material against A2 to support charges under Section 212 of the IPC.

COURT VIEW

10 | P a g e
 It is urged by counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has not collected any
evidence to establish the involvement of the petitioners. This is a case of no evidence. The
petitioners have been implicated with ulterior motive. We do not want to comment on this.
If the accused are entitled to get any benefit because of the delayed medical examination,
they can surely urge that point in the trial. But they must submit themselves to medical
examination. This submission is, therefore, rejected.

DECISION

With these observations, we dismiss Special Leave Petition No.5844 of 2014 filed by A3,
Special Leave Petition No.5897 of 2014 filed by A1 and Special Leave Petition No.5900
of 2014 filed by A4 and A5. So far as Special Leave Petition No.6001 of 2014 filed by A2
is concerned, we dispose of the same by quashing only the charge framed against him for
offence punishable under Section 212 of the IPC.

Part 2

Analysis of the case

The researchers agrees with the judgement given by the Hon’ble Court, but there are a few
point by which the researcher would like to conclude his views –

11 | P a g e
 1. The word 'harbour' includes supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money,
clothes, arms, ammunitions or means of conveyance or assisting a person in any way
to evade apprehension.11 Hence, as A2 took shelter, he might have committed an
offence under Section 212 of IPC. Therefore, the court might have ordered for an
investigation for the same rather than quashing the charge against him. Alternatively,
the court might have referred the same to a trial court or a High court for further
investigation and enquiry.
2. This decision has not been overruled in any further judgement and has been relied
upon in a few.12
3. The counsel for the petitioners gave a lot of contentions as to the various critical faults
made by the Hon’ble High Court. The bench didn’t discuss it in detail. Rather, the
bench could have made a suitable order against the same.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. P.S. Pillai, Criminal Law, LexisNexis , Reprint Ed., (2013).

2. N. PrabhaUnnithan, Crime and Justice in India, SAGE Publications Inc., 7th Edition, (2013).

E – Resources

1. www.academia.edu
11
Ranjit Singh v State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843, (1959) Cr LJ 1124(SC).
12
National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India v. Dalim Mia and Ors.,
2018 SCC OnLineKar 608 ; Mahaveer Prasad Jat v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 1976.

12 | P a g e
2. www.sparknotes.com

3. www.manupatrafast.com

4. www.indiankanoon.org

13 | P a g e