Allowed

Shri Kondoji S/O Piroji Bosale v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2022CRL.P/101562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings for Section 171-H and Section 269 IPC. The court allowed the petition, holding that Section 269 was not attracted without evidence of infection, and Section 171-H investigation was invalid without magistrate permission.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under Section 171-H and 269 of IPC in C.C. No.355/2022 are quashed against the petitioner.

Shri Kondoji S/O Piroji Bosale Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.P.No.101562/2022

¶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.101562/2022

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SHRI. KANDOJI PIROJI BOSALE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: C/O. SHIVAJI NAGAR, HANAGAL TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI - 581 104.

¶10

SHRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BAGASAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HERUR,

¶11

TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI - 581 104.

¶12

SHRI. PRAKASH BAGANNANAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HERUR, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI - 581 104.

¶13

…ACCUSED/PETITIONER

¶14

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

¶15

AND

¶16

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

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

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

¶19

CRL.P.No.101562/2022

¶20

¶21

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.355/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HANAGAL, FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEDGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 171(H) AND SECTION 269 OF THE IPC, 1860, SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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.355/2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 171-H and 269 of IPC, so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that a charge

¶26

sheet came to be filed alleging that on 16.10.2021, petitioner and others were permitted to campaign on behalf of Congress party at Hiruru of Hanagal Taluk for

¶27

CRL.P.No.101562/2022

¶28

¶29

the Hanagal by election to the Legislative Assembly. However, violating the terms of the permission, at 2:00 pm, they he had gathered around 1,200 to 1,500 people and went in possession in the village and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 269 and 171-H of IPC.

¶30

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that in absence of placing material on record that any one of the persons gathered was suffering from Covid-19, the provisions of 269 of IPC the said provision is not attracted. He would further submit that if this Section is removed from the charge sheet, then Section 171-H is left which is non-cognizable offence and without obtaining permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, the investigation could not have been continued and therefore petitioner is entitled for discharge for this offence also.

¶31

CRL.P.No.101562/2022

¶32

¶33

On the other hand learned High Court

¶34

Government Pleader representing the respondent No.1 would submit that since the offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC is cognizable offence, there is no need of taking permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶36

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to apply the provisions of Section 269 of IPC, it was for the prosecution to prima-

¶37

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 not attracted.

¶38

Now coming to the offence punishable under

¶39

Section 171-H which is non-cognizable. If Section 269 of

¶40

CRL.P.No.101562/2022

¶41

¶42

IPC is removed from consideration, then only Section 171-H 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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

9. Thus from the above discussion I hold that

¶46

the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

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

allowed .

CRL.P.No.101562/2022

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 171-H and 269 of IPC, in C.C. No.355/2022, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court,

¶53

Hanagal, is hereby quashed, so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Shri Kondoji S/O Piroji Bosale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kondoji S/O Piroji Bosale 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 Rangangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil 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