Dismissed

Pradeepa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2021CRL.P/3557/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the petitioners prayer to quash the FIR involving allegations of drunk driving and mask non-compliance during official duty, holding that investigation must proceed pending the final report.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected; liberty given to approach the Court after filing of the final report.

Pradeepa Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3557/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRADEEPA, S/O PUTTASWAMIGOWDA KODALU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: DY. RANGE FOREST OFFICER, RESIDING HALASUMANE, TADAGASE, CHICKMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTIRCT- 577 133.

¶9

SWATHI L, D/O LOKAPPA J, AGED ABOUTO 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RANGE FOREST OFFICER, R/AT CHIKMAGALURU – 577 133. … PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI DESAI SHARANABASAPPA VIRANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR OF ALDUR POLICE STATION, ALDUR, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 111. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PENDING PROCEEDINGS OF CR.NO.87/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN PURSUANCE OF FIR DATED 06.06.2020

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.87/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that the State had registered the case against these two petitioners, who are the Government officials working in the Forest Department. That on 05.06.2020, they were proceeding in the car and accused No.1 was driving the car consuming alcohol and both the petitioners were not wearing the mask inspite of there was an order by the Government of Karnataka in view of COVID-19 pandemic, the public were prohibited from 9.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. without the permission from the Government as well as from the Deputy Commissioner and they were proceeding in the prohibited time. Hence, based on the complaint received at 10.30 a.m. on 06.06.2020 through PC 96, case has been registered for the

¶20

¶21

offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of IPC and Section 184 of the Indian Motor vehicles Act (‘IMV Act’ for short) and so also under Section 5(1)(2) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020.

¶22

The petitioners in this petition have contended that

¶23

they were proceeding on duty on credible information of committing of forest offence i.e., with intention to grab the forest property like valuable trees and wood by illegal means tried to enter into forest. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent has not produced any medical test report of the petitioners for consumption of alcohol and its influence and also no blood test is conducted in respect of the petitioners to evaluate the alcohol content beyond the prescribed limit to attract Section 185 of the IMV Act. The car was driven by accused No.1 and he was not under the influence of alcohol. The Trial Court also exceeded the jurisdiction by passing an abusive and erroneous order by permitting to add Section 279 of IPC. The petitioners are Government servants and no sanction is obtained for prosecution. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in

¶24

¶25

Crl.A.No.458/2020 dated 18.06.2020. The learned counsel would submit that without the sanction, prosecution is initiated against the petitioners herein and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶26

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State would submit that accused No.1 was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and both the petitioners were not wearing the mask as per the Government order and they were also proceeding during the prohibited timings. The learned counsel would submit that the penal provisions of Section 279 of IPC is invoked other than the offences which have been invoked against the petitioners. The matter requires investigation and investigation is conducted and reports are also received. In view of the granting of stay in the matter, the prosecution is unable to file the final report before the Court. The learned counsel would submit that primary report discloses that accused No.1 was driving the vehicle consuming the alcohol, but not under its influence and the final report has to be filed.

¶27

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners produced two documents before the Court issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Chikkamagaluru Division, Chikkamagaluru dated 17.07.2020, wherein it is specifically mentioned that both the petitioners were on duty and even they can use their own private vehicle if there is exigencies in taking the vehicle. The learned counsel also relied upon the prescription dated 01.06.2020 for taking the tablet for cold and dry cough by accused No.1. The learned counsel relying upon these two documents would submit that when the petitioners were on public duty, ought to have taken the sanction.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State and also on perusal of the records, the prayer made before this Court is to quash the FIR. This Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR has to consider the contents of the complaint. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, an allegation is made against these two petitioners that they were proceeding at 11.30 p.m. near Vastare Village of Chikkamagaluru and the driver i.e.,

¶30

¶31

accused No.1 herein was driving the vehicle in a zig zag manner and inspite of signal was given, he did not stop the vehicle and ultimately the vehicle was stopped and on enquiry also they have not given the correct details. On insistence, they have given the details and they were not wearing the mask and they have violated the Government order and also they have not obtained the permission from the Deputy Commissioner. In terms of the letter dated 17.07.2020, the superior authority of these petitioners have issued the letter and they were proceeding on their duty. The allegation is that accused No.1 was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and both accused Nos.1 and 2 were not wearing the mask and the same is in violation of the Government order and also no permission was taken from the Deputy Commissioner.

¶32

Having perused the complaint averment, an

¶33

allegation of drunk and drive of the vehicle is made against petitioner No.1 and both petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were not wearing the mask. Having perused the specific allegations made in the complaint and the offences invoked against the petitioners, the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of

¶34

¶35

DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF

¶36

GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 , has summarized the principles with regard to context of challenge to FIR. The Apex Court held that the High Court should not venture to collect the evidence or appreciate the evidence like an Appellate Court and only the Investigating Officer has to probe the crime. Once the FIR discloses committing of an cognizable offence or noncognizable, the Investigating Officer has to be allowed to probe and unearth the crime.

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that petitioner No.1 had consumed alcohol and report is received, but could not file the final report on account of the stay granted by this Court. When the report is obtained, though it is orally submitted that he has consumed the alcohol but not under the influence of alcohol, the matter has to be considered after filing of the charge-sheet and the Investigating Officer has to be allowed to probe and file his report. Hence, at this juncture, it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioners may be given liberty to approach this Court when the final report is filed.

¶38

¶39

The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no sanction is obtained and also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Crl.A.No.458/2020 dated 18.06.2020. The Apex Court in paragraph No.72 of the judgment has held that sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of official duty, it is also required for an act purported to be done in discharge of public duty. The allegation made in the complaint is drunk and drive against petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 was also proceeding in the very same vehicle along with petitioner No.1 not wearing the mask and the same is against the Government order and without obtaining the prior permission. When such allegations are made, if it is not in connection with discharge of public duty, the sanction will not come to the aid of the petitioners. The protection will be given only to the officers, who are purporting to be done in discharge of public duty and not for the offences, which have been invoked against the petitioners.

¶40