Allowed

Mallappa Balappa Pudakalkatti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2022CRL.P/100532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and investigation proceedings. The court held that the dispute arose from a committee supersession, the alleged insulfs breached public peace, and the complainant was not a public servant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in Crime No. 327/2011 registered by the Sub-urban police station, Dharwad are quashed.

Mallappa Balappa Pudakalkatti Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100532 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MALLAPPA BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI S/O BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/AT MADANABHAVI DHARWAD

¶9

LINGARAJ SHIDDARAJ SARADESAI S/O SIDDARAJ SRDESAI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC RETIRED OFFICER, R/AT 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS, NARAYANAPURA

¶10

DHARWAD

¶11

PALAKSHA VIRUPAKSHAPPA KATTISHETTAR S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA KATTISHETTAR AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/AT CB NAGAR, DHARWAD

¶12

RAYAPPA BALAPPA PUDALKATTI S/O BALAPPA PUDAKALKATTI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/AT MADANABAVI DHARWAD

¶13

SHUBHASH C SAMASHETTI S/O C SAMATSHETTI

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶16

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/AT ADARSHANAGAR S SANKESHWAR BELAGAVI DISTRICT

¶17

ULAVIBASAPPA BALAPPA ANGADI S/O BALAPPA ANGADI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/AT SHIVALLI PLOT 3RD CROSS, RAJANAGAR, DHARWAD

¶18

PREMALATHA ULAVIBASAPPA ANADI W/O ULAVIBASAPPA ANGADI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/AT SHIVALLI PLOT 3RD CROSS, RAJANAGAR, DHARWAD

¶19

SAROJINI VIGENDRA MOKASI W/O VIJENDRA MOKASHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/AT STATION ROAD, MALAMADDI DHARWAD

¶20

CHINNAPP SHIVAMURTEPPA MATTI S/O SHIVAMURTHEEPPA MATTI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC BSUINESS, R/AT SAVADATTI MAIN ROAD, MG NAGAR, DHARWAD

¶21

SHASHIKALA CHANNAPPA MATTI W/O CHANNAPPA MATTI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE R/AT SAVADATTI MAIN ROAD,

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶24

M G NAGAR, DHARWAD

¶25

MOHAN PRABHU SAVANOOR S/O PRABHU SAVANUR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC SELE EMPLOYED R/AT DEVAGIRI DHARWAD

¶26

SHANTAVEERAPPA PAKKERAPPA KOTISHETTAR S/O PAKKERAPPAKOTISHETTAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC SELF EMPLOYED R/AT ST ROHINI NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI

¶27

BABU S GOOLAPPANAVAR S/O S GOOLAPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC SELF EMPLOYED R/AT KASTOORIMATA ROAD, NEAR RURAL POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT

¶28

SURAH PUDAKALAKATTI S/O MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC SOCIAL WORKER R/AT NEAR MURUGHA MUTT DHARWAD

¶29

ADITYA MOTE S/O NETAJI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE WORK R/AT NEAR MURUGHA MUTT DHARWAD

¶30

ABHISHEK GALIGOUDAR S/O VISHWANATH

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶33

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE WORK R/AT NEAR MURUGHA MUTT DHARWAD

¶34

HALEMANI S K S/O KALLANGIDUA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/AT KELAGERI DHARWAD

¶35

…PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J M.,ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-580011

¶39

SRI S RADHAKRISHNAN AGE 51 YEARS, SECRETARY DAKSHIN BHARATH HINDI PRACHAR SABHA KARNATAKA BRANCH DHARWAD-580001

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH., HCGP FOR R1;

¶42

SRI. AVINASH ANGADI, ADV., FOR R2)

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶45

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND THE COMPLIANT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CRIME NO.0327/2021, (DHARWAD SUB URBAN POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 504, 506, 353, 149 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A AND B) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The First Information Report is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506, 353, 149 of IPC alleging that the petitioners-accused on 18/10/2021 by forming unlawful assembly entered the office of the complainant and informed him to comply with the interim order passed by this Court and when the Complainant stated that he will comply the order after receiving instructions from the head office, at that point of time, petitioners-accused abused him in filthy language and restrained him from discharging his duties

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶51

and threatened him with dire consequences. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of the supersession of the committee of which the petitioners-accused were members and the First Information Report was lodged by the Complainant so as to circumvent the interim order passed by this Court in WP.No.103712/2021 dated 30/9/2021. He further submits that abusive language alleged to have used by the petitioners-accused has not caused breach of public peace or commission of any other offence so as constitute the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that petitioners-accused by forming an unlawful assembly have abused the Complainant in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences, which constitute the commission of aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners-accused. The allegations made in the First Information Report requires to be investigated and at this

¶54

¶55

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶56

stage, the registration of First Information Report cannot be interfered with.

¶57

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶58

The petitioners have challenged the supersession of the committee. In WP.No.103712/2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 30/9/2021 had granted an interim order in favour of the petitioners and during the operation of the said interim order, the alleged incident has taken place, which clearly implies that, the First Information Report was lodged with an intention to circumvent the interim order passed by this Court.

¶59

To constitute the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC the intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause breach of public peace or any other offence. In the instant case, the alleged abusive language used by the petitioners-accused has not resulted in breach of public peace or commission of any other offence.

¶60

¶61

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶62

To constitute the offence under Section 353 of IPC, there should be an assault or use of criminal force to a public servant deterring him from discharging his duty. In the instant case, the Complainant is not a public servant so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. Hence, in the absence of any allegation so as to constitute the commission of aforesaid offences, the registration of criminal proceedings against the petitionersaccused is impermissible.

¶63

In view of preceding analysis, continuation of investigation against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of the police filing the charge sheet against the petitioners-accused is remote and bleak and also that the dispute between the parties arises out of the supersession of the committee and also appointment of an Administrator. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) Criminal petition is allowed;

¶66

¶67

CRL.P No. 100532 of 2022

¶68

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.327/2011 registered by the Sub-urban police station, Dharwad is hereby quashed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

VB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 149

Mallappa Balappa Pudakalkatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallappa Balappa Pudakalkatti 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

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani Vs the Divisional Controller

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa Vs the Management of Nekrtc

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab Vs the State of Karnataka

Thyagarajan Venkatesan Vs the State of Karnataka

Hulgesh Alias Hulagappa S/O Parasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Jyothi W/O Prakash Bhajantri Vs the State of Karnataka