Allowed

Sri.Yousuf Sharief v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2017CRL.P/3432/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered against petitioners who protested the inhumane arrest of their relative from an operation theatre. The court relied on medical certificate cited that the arrest was forcible without disturbing police and that petitioners were on the receiving end.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime no. 70 / 2016 on the file of the Robertsonpet Police Station, KGF, are quashed.

Sri.Yousuf Sharief Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3432 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Yousuf Sharief, Son of Dastagir Sharief, Aged about 50 years,

¶9

Shaziya Tarannum, Wife of Yousuf Sharief, Aged about 30 years,

¶10

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are Residing at No.22/1, Kaveriappa Layout, Millers Tank Bund Road, Bengaluru – 560 052.

¶11

Sri. Nayaz, Son of Late Abdul Jaleel, Aged about 53 years,

¶12

Sri. Maqsood, Son of Sharief Khan,

¶13

¶14

Aged about 45 years,

¶15

Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are Residing at No.57, Old Post Office Road, Anderson Pet, K.G.F. – 563 113.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(By Shri S. Balakrishnan, Advocate)

¶18

AND:

¶19

The State of Karnataka, By Robertsonpet Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶20

Sri. M. Praveen, Police Inspector, Special Police Station, CCB, Bengaluru – 560 018.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(By Shri Vishweshwaraiah, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 served)

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.0070/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 332, 504, 341, 353 read with 149 of IPC on the file of Robertsonpet Police Station, at K.G.F.

¶24

¶25

This petition having been heard and reserved on 19.1.2017 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are before this court in the following

¶28

circumstances.

¶29

It transpires that on 30.3.2016 the Sub-Inspector of Police, CCB, Bangalore is said to have lodged a report before the respondent police alleging that petitioner no.1 was accused of offences punishable under Sections 504, 353 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity) registered as Crime No.42/2016 on the file of the Vidhana Soudha Police Station. A police team lead by an Assistant Commissioner of Police is said to have visited Kolar Gold Fields, in search of the said petitioner on learning that he was admitted in the General Hospital, KGF, and that he was likely to be discharged on that day. It is claimed that when they

¶30

¶31

arrested him at the hospital premises and were about to take him away, petitioner no.2, the wife of petitioner no.1 and Petitioners no. 3 & 4 who were his relatives along with several other persons are said to have protested as to the manner in which the petitioner was forced off the operation table in hospital attire, when he was about to undergo surgery and had forced him into his street clothes and had bundled him into a jeep. This is said to have been construed as criminal offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 332, 504, 341, 353 and 149 IPC, registered as Crime no. 70/ 2016 on the file of the Robertsonpet Police , KGF.

¶32

The present petition is filed questioning the said proceedings.

¶33

It is claimed that the first petitioner was undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, KGF, as he was said to be suffering from piles and that he was advised to undergo surgery. He was said to have been prepared for the operation

¶34

¶35

and was taken to the operation theatre. At that point of time, a police team from Bangalore lead by an Assistant Commissioner of Police is said to have forcibly gained entry into the Operation theatre and are said to have forced the petitioner no.1 to go with them and had made him change his clothes before being bundled into a jeep. Petitioners 2 to 4 are said to have protested at the inhuman treatment meted out to the petitioner no.1, which has led to the above criminal case being filed.

¶36

The learned counsel would contend that there is no

¶37

material to indicate that any of the petitioners had assaulted any of the police personnel, or used criminal force against them while they were purportedly discharging their duty. Nor has it been demonstrated that the police party were deterred in any manner from performing their alleged duties. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention to the tenor of Sections 349 & 350 of the IPC. He would point out that from a reading of the definitions above, there is no case made

¶38

¶39

out against the petitioners. The pleas for mercy by the second petitioner and others has been construed as obstructing the police. And also of having committed an offence punishable under Section 504 IPC.

¶40

It is also pointed out that even according to the complaint, the petitioners’ presence at the hospital on account of the ailment of petitioner no.1 is not denied. Therefore, it could not have been characterized as an unlawful assembly.

¶41

It is further asserted that the Senior Specialist, General Hospital, KGF has issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner no.1 was evaluated by a surgeon, Dr. M. Mahendra, of bleeding from the rectum and was said to have been taken up for surgery on 30.3.2016 and that when he was on the operation table at 12-00 noon, he was forcibly taken by the police into custody. Two other doctors who were said to be present have also issued similar certificates, the same are produced as Annexures to the petition.

¶42

¶43

Though the learned Government Pleader seeks to resist

¶44

the petition and contends that the petitioner no.1 is a habitual offender and that the proceedings ought to run its course, it would appear that a strong contingent of police personnel lead by a senior officer could be terrorized or held at bay by the petitioners is not readily acceptable. Particularly as against the petitioner no.1 who was said to be in the jeep along with the policemen and the jeep being prevented from moving by petitioner no.2, the wife of petitioner no.1, who was protesting the inhuman manner in which the petitioner was sought to be taken into custody is strongly evidenced by the following statements made by the medical practitioners who were present at the time of arrest.

¶45

The text of the said certificates is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :

¶46

¶47

“Dr. M. Mahendra, M.d., M.Phil.,(HHsM), Mob:9060810996

¶48

CONSULTING PHYSICIAN & DIABETOLOGIST PDC IN Cardiology & HFWD Nephrology – Trained KMC-52974

¶49

DATE: 11/04/2016 TO WHOMSOEVER CONCERNED

¶50

Mr. Yousuf Shariff, 50 years of age was initially treated at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital for Assault Chest Pain, Hypertension and weakness of corner lenses and suffered at SJICR. He was evaluated at SJICR and referred to general Hospital for further monitoring on 27/03/2016 at 1:50 pm he was admitted by CMO on duty Dr. Devaraj Poongan and referred to Physician on 28/03/2016 for evaluation.

¶51

On 28/03/2016 evening he was evaluated for H/o. Hypertension, chest discomfort and rhythm disturbances (as recorded @ B&LCH). He had MLC done at Vidhana Soudha Police Station for H/o. Assault by HC 6198 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station (as per records of OPD Sheets) referred letter also documented as rhythm disturbances, ECG showed extra systolic & VPC.

¶52

During evaluation by physician he was advised investigation, rest and observation for heart and pulse rate for 7 days from 28/03/2016.

¶53

On 29/03/2016 he was evaluated by Surgeon Dr. Shiva Kumar for bleeding per rectum and was taken up for Fisertony on 30/03/2016, at operation theatre. At this point he was in Operation Theatre – Surgery Department at about 12:00 noon police took him in forcibly from the Operation Theatre in Police Jeep in my presence, the patient fully cooperated with the police without any disturbance to the police.

¶54

¶55

Due to intervention from Police Department and pressure, his surgery was deferred (postponed) and due to CCB Police intervention Casualty Medical Officer or 30/03/2016 discharged forcibly and referred to Higher Medical Centre, informing the Surgeon and admitting Doctor Dr. devaraj Poongan refused to discharge the patient.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Sr. Specialist GENERAL HOSPITAL Robertsonpet, K.G.F-563 122.”

¶58

“GENERAL HOSPITAL, KGF (GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA)

¶59

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

¶60

No.A 131262

¶61

Date: 30.03.2016

¶62

This is to certify that Smt. Shaziya Tarannum, W/o. Mr. Yusuf Shariff, aged 30 years (Female) was assaulted and misbehaved by male police personnel in my presence and other doctors and Hospital staff and public as witnesses, Mr. Yusuf Shariff was taken into police custody on the day forcibly and arrested in Operation Theatre and the patient was in an unconscious state. She protected her husband Mr. Yusuf Shariff in front of police jeep. During this process she

¶63

¶64

sustained injuries while male police personnel assaulted and misbehaved with her, necessary wound certificate is obtained from competent authorities on 30.03.2016.

¶65

Day of incident is 30.03.2016 at 11.45 a.m.

¶66

She was pregnant on the day of the incident and necessary concerned documents produced and she has sustained injuries and came to me with this appeal.

¶67

She was assaulted by the police parties on her private part in front of me.

¶68

Sd/Dr. SURESH KUMAR H.M. M.B.B.S., M.S. (Ortho) Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon KMC Reg. No.45087

¶69

General Hospital, Robertsonpet, K.G.F., Kolar District.”

¶70

��

¶71

TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

¶72

I certify that I have personally witnessed alongwith my whole Hospital staff, public and few journalists, on 30.03.2016 11.45 a.m. when Mr. Yusuf Shariff was about to go for his Haemorotacetony and Fissure operation in anal apprlum at 11:45 a.m. The operation was about to be commenced, suddenly some Police Department personnel forcibly taken him

¶73

¶74

for custody to unknown place without informing the hospital authorities or their family members.

¶75

His wife Smt. Shaziya Tarannum, a young lady with an old lady, and advocate were present and they had peacefully requested the police personnel to allow for conducting the operation. The police personnel refused and forcibly taken him in to the police vehicle, but repeatedly not to take her sick husband from the Hospital. But two or three police personnel forcibly taken her husband when he was in an unconscious condition in to the police vehicle and manhandled her. Later a lady WPC came to the picture to take her, by that time the young lady felt unconscious, and she was taken to the casualty and examined by a Lady Doctor LMO Gynaecologist and Obstetrician and took scanning and found that she was pregnant, aneamic and in agony of pain and she fell ill and was treated.

¶76

These things were done in public and in witness of Hospital staff, Nurses, Doctors and Journalists. Videography was taken, photos enclosed for evidence.

¶77

Sd/(Dr. DEVARAJ POONGAN) Senior Specialist General Hospital, K.G.F-563 122.”

¶78

In the light of these documents, it is evident that it was

¶79

the petitioners who were on the receiving end and the complaint

¶80

¶81

is apparently filed merely to teach the petitioners a lesson for having protested the manner of arrest of petitioner no. 1.

¶82

Hence the petition is summarily allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime no.70 / 2016 on the file of the Robertsonpet Police Station, KGF, is quashed.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

KS*

Sri.Yousuf Sharief v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Yousuf Sharief v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur Vs Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, Vs Dilip Mohan Shewale

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Sangappa S/O. Vasudev Surkod

Sri Yousuf Sharief Vs the State of Karnataka

Naresh Balasubramaniam Vs State of Karnataka

Joseph Chacko Vs State of Karnataka