Allowed

Shri Rangangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2022CRL.P/101561/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The court held the Act not applicable in the specific city, Section 269 IPC not attracted due to lack of disease evidence, and Section 171-F IPC requires magistrate permission which was absent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.28/2022 were quashed against the petitionersofar as concerns offences under the Karnataka Open Place Act and IPC Sections 269 and 171-F.

Shri Rangangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.P.No.101561 /2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101561/2022

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SHRI. RANGANGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: POLITICIAN, R/O: C/O. PRESIDENT BLOCK CONGRESS PARTY, HANAGAL. TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI - 581 104.

¶10

…ACCUSED/PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C NO.28/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANAGAL, FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEDGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.3 OF THE KARNATAKA OPEN PLACE (PREVENTION OF DISFIGUREMENT) ACT, 1951 AND 1981 AND

¶17

CRL.P.No.101561 /2022

¶18

¶19

SECTIONS 171(F) AND SECTION 269 OF THE IPC, 1860, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶20

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.09.2022.COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, petitioner who is arraigned as accused is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.28/2022, for the offences punishable under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1951 and 1981 (for short “the Act”) and Sections 269 and 171-F of IPC, so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that a charge sheet came to be filed alleging that though petitioner was permitted to gather 50 people for filing nomination to the assembly by election, on 07.10.2021, in between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, he had gathered around 1,500 to

¶24

CRL.P.No.101561 /2022

¶25

¶26

2,000 people and took them in possession from Kumareshwara Matha to Rajani Talkies of Hanagal City, by displaying the flags of Congress party, violating the instructions of central election commission and standard operating procedure for Covid-19 and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 269 and 171-F of IPC and Section 3 of the Act.

¶27

During the course of arguments, the learned

¶28

counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Act are not at all applicable to Hanagal city and therefore the complaint with regard to Section 3 of the Act is liable to be quashed. He would also submit that, so far as the provisions of 269 of IPC is concerned, in absence of placing material on record that any one of the persons gathered was suffering from Covid-19, the said provision is not attracted. He would further submit that if these two offences are removed from the charge sheet, then Section 171-F is left which is non-cognizable offence and without obtaining permission from the

¶29

CRL.P.No.101561 /2022

¶30

¶31

jurisdictional magistrate, the investigation could not have been continued and therefore petitioner is entitled for discharge for this offence also.

¶32

On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent No.1 would submit that since the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act, and Section 269 of IPC are cognizable offences, there is no need of taking permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶34

So far as the allegations that by displaying the flags, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 3 of the Act is concerned, undisputedly the provisions of the Act are not applicable to Hanagal city and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed so far as the said provision is concerned. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in

¶35

CRL.P.No.101561 /2022

¶36

¶37

order to apply the provisions of Section 269 of IPC, it was for the prosecution to prima-facie establish that in the said gathering, at least one person was suffering from Covid-19, as a result of which there was possibility of he infecting the remaining members of the gathering. In the absence of the same the provisions of Section 269 of IPC is also not attracted.

¶38

Now coming to the offence punishable under Section 171-F which is non-cognizable. If Section 269 of IPC and Section 3 of the Act, are removed from consideration, then only Section 171-F is left for which the permission of the Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C is required. In absence of the same, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be continued and the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶39

CRL.P.No.101561 /2022

¶40

¶41

In similar matters in Criminal Petition Nos.100332/2022, 5185/2021, 2089/2021,

¶42

101186/2018 and 102293/2019 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings.

¶43

Thus from the above discussion, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed.

¶46

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1951 and 1981 and Sections 269 and 171-F of IPC, in C.C. No.28/2022, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal, is hereby quashed, so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Shri Rangangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rangangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gadigevva W/O. Ramappa Lakkannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudrayya S/O. Chandrashekarayya Kalawadmath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Hanmant S/O. Arjun Hunachikatti Vs Karnataka State Government

Shri Kondoji S/O Piroji Bosale Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vijaykumar S/O Shivrudrappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesab S/O Abbassaheb Nidgundi, Vs Anwar Zaki S/O Ibrahim Shaikh