Mohammed Farooq Ur Rahaman v. State by Udayagiri Police Station

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021CRL.P/3917/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed by eleven accused persons challenging the order of the Trial Court which rejected their application for discharge. The Trial Court held that discharge applications are not maintainable in summons cases instituted on police reports under Section 239 CrPC. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order, granted liberty to file

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file application under Section 258 CrPC.

Mohammed Farooq Ur Rahaman Vs State by… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3917/2018

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MOHAMMED FAROOQ-UR-RAHAMAN GENERAL SECRETARY PFI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.7, RS NAIDU NAGAR KESAR 2^ND STAGE MYSORE-570 007

¶10

ABDUL KHADAR GENERAL SECRETARY PFI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT DECCAN HOUSE NO.5, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN S K GERDON BENSON TOWN POST BANGALORE – 560 046

¶11

DR.POORNANDA @ ACHARI PROGRESSIVE THINKER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.2846, POLICE QUARTERS KURUBARAHALLI CIRCLE SIDDARTHANAGAR MYSORE – 570 011

¶12

ABDUL HANNAN GENERAL SECRETARY SDPI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS C/O STATE HEAD OFFICE DIGNITY CENTER SF NO.14 C HAMEED SHA COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 002

¶13

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶14

¶15

SHIVANNA @ JORANAHALLI SHIVANNA DALITH SANGASHA SAMITHI (DSS) AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS TALUK: MYSORE PANCHAYATHI T NAGARSIPUR, CHORANAHALLI MYSORE – 570 022

¶16

SHABBIR MUSATAFA STATE COMMITTEE MEMBER SDPI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 5^TH MAIN BANNIMANTAPPA-C-LAYOUT MYSORE – 570 015

¶17

MOHAMMED-UL-HASAN AZIZ-UL-ULOOM, SECRETARY SDPI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT MASJID-E-AKILA BEEDI COLONY, MYSORE – 570 017

¶18

MOULANA MOHAMMED KALIMULLA SIDDIQUE DISTRICT PRESIDENT PFI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.244, 8^TH CROSS SHANTHINAGAR MYSORE – 570 015

¶19

AZAM PASHA MYSORE DISTRICT SECRETARY PFI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 2626, 5^TH CROSS PULAKESHI ROAD MYSORE – 570 011

¶20

AMEEN SAIT S/O MOHAMMED SAIT SDPI MEMBER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 482 MIG-2-3^RD CROSS 1^ST MAIN, RAJIVANAGAR, 1^ST MAIN MYSORE – 570 017

¶21

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶22

¶23

11.	MOHAMMED FAISAL DISTRICT PRESIDENT SDPI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.4, MIG DR.RAJAKUMAR ROAD KALAYANAGIRI MYSORE – 570 019
12.	MATEEN BAIG MYSORE CITY SECRETARY SDPI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
	R/AT NO MIG 49 KHB COLONY QUBA MASJID ROAD
	UADAYAGIRI, MYSORE – 570 019
13.	TABREZ SAIT @ TABREZ SANCHALAKA SDPI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT 46, CONVENT ROAD LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSORE – 570 001
14.	MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL MYSORE DISTRICT PRESIDENT
	CAMPUS FRONT OF INDIA (CFI) AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT 544, 3^RDCROSS 2^NDSTAGE, NEAR MAKKA MASJID RAJIVNAGARA, MYSORE – 570 001 … PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.)

¶25

AND :

¶26

STATE BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001

¶27

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶28

¶29

VENKATESHA R POLICE OFFICER UDAYAGIR POLICE STATION MYSORE – 570 019 … RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE-F i.e., ORDER VIDE DATED 29.12.2018 DISMISSAL OF DISCHARGE APPLICATION PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.2052/2014 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.26/2013 AND APPRECIATE THE APPLICATION OF DISCHARGE FILED THE PETITIONER SAME AT ANNEXURE-D THE AND THIS PETITIONERS IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 11 AND 13 TO 15 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 145, 353 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.

¶32

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

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Aggrieved by the order of the II Additional I Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysore in C.C.No.2052/2014 rejecting their application for discharge, accused have preferred the above petition.

¶35

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 11 and 13 to 15 in C.C.No.2052/2014. Said case was registered against the petitioners and 12^th accused on

¶36

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶37

¶38

the basis of the charge sheet filed by Udayagiri police in Crime No.26/2013. Crime No.26/2013 was registered against the petitioners and 12^th accused on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 i.e., Police Sub-Inspector, Law and Order, Udayagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 353 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶39

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶40

On 17.02.2013 at 2.30 p.m., the accused

¶41

organized Anniversary celebration of Popular Front of India (PFI) with the permission of the Commissioner of Police. The permission was only to hold a meeting in the Eidgah Maidan. The Commissioner had not granted permission to conduct the procession to avoid communal tension. Contrary to the order, the accused attempted to conduct procession and shout slogans to cause breach of peace. The complainant and his colleagues who were deputed for

¶42

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶43

¶44

maintenance of law and order duty requested the accused not to proceed with the procession. The accused manhandling the police staff conducted the procession. Thereby obstructed the public servants from discharging their duties.

¶45

The Trial Court on taking cognizance, summoned the petitioners to face the trial. Petitioners filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking their discharge from the case on the ground that there was no material to proceed against them. The prosecution opposed the application. The Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the case involves the offences requiring summons trial, in such case discharge application is not maintainable.

¶46

There is no dispute that out of the offences alleged, the offence under Section 353 was major offence which carries imprisonment upto two years. Therefore, the case requires summons trial.

¶47

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

¶48

¶49

Admittedly, the prosecution was commenced on the basis of the police report not otherwise than on a police report. In such case, as rightly held by the Trial Court the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

¶50

Section 258 of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:

¶51

“258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases

¶52

In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.”

(emphasis supplied)

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 17 of

¶57

the judgment in Bhushan Kumar and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another¹ held as follows:

¶58

“17. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial Court pursuant to summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge-sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code.”

¶59

The reading of the above judgment and Section 258 of Cr.P.C., makes it clear that if the trial

¶60

Court on carefully going through the allegations made in the charge sheet comes to the conclusion that no offence is disclosed can stop the proceedings

1 AIR 2012 SC 1747

Crl.P.No.3917/2018

otherwise it shall explain the substance of accusation

¶65

of the case and record his plea.

¶66

This Court does not find any illegality or

¶67

impropriety in the impugned order of the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that evidence is still not recorded. Therefore, if at all the petitioner files application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with Section 258 of Cr.P.C.

¶68

With these observations, the petition is

¶69

dismissed.

¶70

In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A. No.1/2018 stood disposed of.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Mohammed Farooq Ur Rahaman v. State by Udayagiri Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Farooq Ur Rahaman v. State by Udayagiri Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rakshith J Perikal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula A.B Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmukhappa D Vs State of Karnataka

Christian Chidiebere Chukwu Vs the State

M Govinda Bhat Vs Station House Officer

Sri Nandakumar a Vs Mrs Purnima J