Allowed

Shri. Sharath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2021CRL.P/9537/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 425/2018 concerning the petitioners. The Court held that the complaint and charge sheet failed to allege specific overt acts or criminal incidents attributable to the petitioners, making a further trial inappropriate and likely to cause a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the proceedings in C.C. No.425/2018 to stand quashed insofar as they concern the petitioners.

Shri. Sharath Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9537/2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. SHARATH,

¶9

SON OF VENKATANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶10

PIN - 561202.

¶11

SHRI.MANI@ SUBRAMANI, SON OF GOLYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NALLADIGALA BANDE, THANDA,KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,

¶12

PIN - 561202.

¶13

SHRI. NARASIMHA REDDY, ADVOCATE, SON OF LATE NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUVEMPUT NAGAR, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN - 561 202.

¶14

SHRI. SUMAN, SON OF VENKATESH,

¶15

¶16

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN - 561 202. 5. SHRI. MANJU BHARGAV N.V, SON OF VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN - 561 202.

¶17

... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH KUMAR RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PAVAGADA PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, TUMKUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

SHRI. NAGARAJ, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR, PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN - 561 202.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.425/2018 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 143, 145, 147, 149, 427, 353 OF IPC AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO CHARGE SHEET PENDING ON THE FILEOF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court call in question the proceedings in C.C.No.425 of 2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Pavagada alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 353 and 149 of the IPC.

¶29

Heard Smt. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶30

The facts projected by the prosecution against the petitioners are that one leader of the

¶31

¶32

Barathiya Janatha Party Mr. Krishna Naik along with his supports being aggrieved by the denial of ticket to contest a seat of the Legislative Assembly were staging a protest in S.S.K Circle and at that point of time it is alleged that the petitioners along with others had blocked Police Officers from discharging their official duties and had indulged in shouting slogans and some of the supporters were throwing chairs on the street and obstructing free movement of traffic and when the Circle Inspector tried to prevent the same it is alleged that the mob pushed and prevented him from discharging official duties. A complaint was registered on 17.04.2018 in Crime No.153 of 2018 alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 149, and 353 of the IPC. The candidate who was denied ticket Mr. Krishna Naik and the 2^nd petitioner are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 respectively. Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences adding the offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC. The

¶33

¶34

learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Pooja K would vehemently argue and contend that neither the complaint nor the charge sheet filed against the petitioners would indicate any particular overt act on the part of the petitioners. Even the statements recorded under Section 168 of the Cr.P.C. also do not implicate the petitioners but all are indicative against accused No.1. The 1^st petitioner did not participate in the rally but did contend that they were part of an unlawful assembly. The statement of eye witness is vindicate of her submission is contended with emphasis. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader though seeks to submit that it is a matter of trial would admit the contention that there is no particular overt act of offences allegedly committed by the petitioners.

¶35

¶36

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶37

submissions made by the learned appearing for the parties.

¶38

On the afore narrated events of accused No.1

¶39

not getting a ticket to contest from BJP he and his followers staged a protest and the protest led to certain affray. The complaint registered by the Police on the ground that the petitioners have indulged in blocking the road and preventing discharge of official duties by the Police reads as follows:

¢£ÁAPÀ: 17/04/2018

"gÀªÀjUÉ:

oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,

¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ,

¶44

¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ, vÀÄªÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè.

¶45

«µÀAiÀÄ: PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

¶46

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, vÀªÀÄä°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ¢:17/04/2018 gÀAzÀÄ F ¢ªÀ¸À ¨É½UÉÎ ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ mË£ï J¸ï.J¸ï.PÉ. ¸ÀPÀð¯ï£À §½ ©.eÉ.¦. ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÁzÀ PÀÈµÁÚ£ÁAiÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ¨ÉA§°UÀgÁzÀ 1) ±ÀgÀvï ªÉAPÀmÁ¥ÀÄgÀ, ªÀÄtÂ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½î vÁAqÀ, £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ gÉrØ (ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ), ºÁUÀÆ FvÀ£À ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀÄ ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæPÉÌ ¹ÃlÄ ºÀAaPÉ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ©.eÉ.¦. ¥ÀPÀëzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥Àæw¨sÀl£É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¨ÁwäÃ EzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄªÀÄvÉ

¶47

¶48

£À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ oÁuÁ ¹§âA¢AiÀiÁzÀ ¦.¹. 736, UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀÈµÀÚ E§âgÀ£ÀÄß J¸ï.J¸ï.PÉ. ¸ÀPÀð¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, EzÉÃ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è £ÁªÀÅ J¸ï.J¸ï.PÉ. ¸ÀPÀð¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ©.eÉ.¦. vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ªÀÄÄRAqÀ PÀÈµÁÚ£ÁAiÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ¸ÀºÀZÀgÀgÀÄ ©.eÉ.¦. ¥ÀPÀëzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ WÉÆÃµÀuÉ PÀÆUÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 12-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀbÉÃj ¸À«ÄÃ¥À ©.eÉ.¦. ¥ÀPÀëzÀ PÀbÉÃj ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÀÄ. PÀÈµÁÚ£ÁAiÀÄÌ£À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ J¸ÉzÀÄ ZÉÃgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÁQ ¸ÀAZÁgÀPÉÌ CrØAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀAZÁgÀPÉÌ C£ÀÄªÀÅ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÀ ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ ¹.¦.L ºÉZï.f. ªÀÄºÉÃ±À, ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¦¹:-381, ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÁ ¦¹:-342, ¦¹:-140, ¦¹:-752, ¦¹:-427, ¦¹:-113gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àr¹ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÀAZÁgÀPÉÌ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Àæw¨sÀl£É ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¸ÀÄªÀ½PÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀÆPÁr PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F WÀl£É¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆªÀÄzÀgÉ AiÀÄÄAmÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrAiÀÄ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ PÀÈZÀë£ÁAiÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÝ DvÀ£À ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAvÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjzÉ.

¶49

¸ÀÜ¼À: ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ ¢:-17/04/2018

¶50

(£ÁUÀgÁdÄ) J.J¸ï.L. ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ, oÁuÉ"

¶51

This resulted in registration of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 149, 427 and 353. Sections 143 to 149 all deal with offences against public tranquility; Section 143 deals with punishment for unlawful assembly; Section 145 deals with joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse; Section 147 deals with

¶52

¶53

punishment for rioting; Section 149 deals with any member of the unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of a common object. If the provisions under which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted are considered on the complaint that is registered against the petitioners or even the charge sheet in Column No.17 is concerned, it would not indicate any particular overt act on the part of the petitioners in furtherance of common intention as is found in the afore quoted provisions. The statements recorded by the Police also would not point at the offences that are alleged against the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners even in the charge sheet are that they took out plastic chairs and sat on the street blocking the traffic. There is no allegation against the petitioners in the charge sheet about overt act committed that would incur punishment under the aforesaid provisions of law. The other offence alleged is Section 427 which deals with mischief causing damage

¶54

¶55

to a property. It is not the allegation against the petitioners in the complaint or in the statements recorded that they have indulged in any mischief causing loss or damage to the property. Section 353 also finds a place in the charge sheet. Section 353 deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duties. There is no allegation of assault against the petitioners even in the charge sheet or use of criminal force to deter any public servant from functioning. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioners do not make out any offence either in the complaint or in the charge sheet or even in the statements recorded by the Police which preceded filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, in the circumstance of a mob fury in which no particularization of any overt act or incidents which are criminal in nature are made out against the petitioners. It would be inappropriate to permit any further trial to be conducted against the

¶56

¶57

petitioners before the criminal court as it would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶58

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.425 of 2018 stand

¶59

quashed in so far as they concern the petitioners.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

VBS

Shri. Sharath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sharath v. 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

Thyagaraja Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

C T Jayakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.M.N. Raikar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Umesh Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Itc Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Acchangi Mahesh Vs the Chief Secretary