Allowed

Sri Yousuf Sharief v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2017CRL.P/3433/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition seeking quashing of FIR alleging assault and intimidation during the petitioner's protest against a demand for illegal gratification in the Vidhana Soudha, the High Court found the complaints to be contradictory and contrived.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution proceedings initiated in Crime No. 0042/2016 on the file of Vidhana Soudha Police, Bangalore are quashed.

Sri Yousuf Sharief Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | 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.3433 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Yousuf Sharief, Son of Dastagir Sharief, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.22/1, Kaveriappa Layout, Millers Tank Bund Road, Bengaluru – 560 052.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri S. Balakrishnan, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

Smt. Mahalakshmi,

¶14

¶15

Under Secretary, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri Vishweshwaraiah B., Advocate for Respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 served)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.0042/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 353 and 354 of IPC on the file of Vidhana Soudha Police Station at Bengaluru.

¶20

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:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is before this court in the following

¶23

circumstances:

¶24

The petitioner is said to have participated in a public auction sale of land, held by the Government of Karnataka as on 27.5.2005 and he was said to be a successful bidder of 3

¶25

¶26

items of land, situated at Kengeri, Bangalore. The total price was Rs.3.05 crore. He is said to have deposited the amount. But the lands were said to have remained without being transferred in his favour. Hence he is said to have filed a petition before this court, in its writ jurisdiction in W.P.2061/2016. In spite of the same having been allowed and the State being directed to effect the transfer, it appears that there was no compliance. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have met the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue) on

¶27

17.3.2016 in his office chamber situated in the Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, to appraise him of the Order in his favour and the inaction on the part of the Government. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said official made a demand for illegal gratification to expedite the matter, at which the petitioner is said to have protested. At that point of time the complainant, Smt. Mahalakshmi, Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka (Revenue) is said to have entered the Chamber of the Principal Secretary, with whom the petitioner was arguing. It

¶28

¶29

was claimed and suspected by her that the petitioner was recording the conversation and had immediately intervened and is said to have tried to snatch the cell phone on which the petitioner was alleged to be recording the conversation and that he had resisted, upon which she had raised a hue and cry and alleged that the petitioner had assaulted her and caused hurt and prevented her from discharging her duties. It is this complaint which is the subject matter of this petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out

¶31

that from a perusal of the complaint and given the above circumstances, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not present. He would draw attention to the tenor of Sections 349, 350, 354 and 504 IPC, to demonstrate that the complaint has no legs to stand and that the proceedings are to be quashed. He would particularly point out that the incident is admittedly stated to have taken place in the office chamber of the Principal Secretary and not in the Chamber of the complainant and

¶32

¶33

further, the circumstance that the petitioner who is accused of such a serious assault on a senior officer of the State Government in the office premises of the Principal Secretary, could not be expected to come out of the premises unscathed if indeed the petitioner had attacked and harmed a senior lady officer.

¶34

It is in this background that the petitioner seeks that the proceedings which are on the face of it contrived and in order to forestall the petitioner from instituting proceedings against the Principal Secretary himself for having demanded illegal gratification, be quashed.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand

¶36

seeks to resist the petition and claims that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and that he is a habitual offender. And seeks to cite several cases that are said to have been instituted against

¶37

¶38

the petitioner in relation to some other incidents involving the petitioner elsewhere.

¶39

On a perusal of the complaint and the circumstances

¶40

urged, it is seen that the complainant has candidly stated that

¶41

she believed the petitioner was seeking to record the conversation between himself and the Principal Secretary and in the same voice she has stated that the petitioner was using foul language in abusing the Principal Secretary and when she tried to intervene and prevent him from videographing the incident, he had abused her also in foul language and had assaulted her. This appears to be a contradiction in terms. In that, if he had indeed video recorded the event, he would have incriminated himself in demonstrating that he was an aggressor and had abused the complainant and the Principal Secretary. Secondly, the Vidhana Soudha is a high security zone and the movement of members of the public is strictly regulated. The claim that the petitioner had gained illegal entry into the Principal

¶42

¶43

Secretary's Chamber is itself an assertion that cannot be readily accepted.

¶44

It is possible that the complainant had chosen to come to the rescue of her senior officer whose voice may have been recorded by the petitioner and any damaging statement made was desperately sought to be retrieved by the complainant and she has been prevented from forcibly taking away the cell phone of the petitioner. The alleged man handling and assault by the petitioner in the very chambers of a person of the stature of the Principal Secretary to the Government, would have resulted in a free for all by the hundreds of employees on the premises who would have taken on the petitioner, even before calling the police. The fact that the petitioner has remained unscathed would indicate that he was not the aggressor.

¶45

The case certainly appears to be contrived. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in Crime

¶46

¶47

no.42/2016 on the file of the Vidhana Soudha Police,

¶48

Bangalore, stands quashed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

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