Allowed

Sri Mahantesha v. the State by

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CRL.P/1049/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused. The Court held that the police lacked authority to arrest without a warrant, invalidating the section 353 IPC charge, and found no breach of public peace for section 504 IPC allegations.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1310/2017 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Harihara are quashed.

Sri Mahantesha Vs the State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1049 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI.MAHANTESHA, S/O LATE JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 3^RD CROSS, A K COLONY, HARIHARA TOWN, DAVANAGERE – 577 601.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MARUTHI G B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE BY HARIHARA TOWN P.S., HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ROHITH B J, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1310/2017 (CR NO.140/2016) ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, HARIHARA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S

¶15

¶16

143,114,504,353,34 OF IPC WITH RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN (ACCUSED NO.1).

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The police after investigation have submitted a charge sheet alleging that when complainant witnesses Nos. 1 and 4 went to apprehend accused Nos. 5 and 6 they pushed the said witnesses and at that point of time, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 abused the complainant witnesses in an abusive language and accused Nos. 5 and 6 escaped on the instigation of the said accused. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the offences punishable for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 114, 504, 353 read with Section 34 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and for the offences

¶20

¶21

punishable under Sections 143, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC against accused Nos. 5 and 6. Taking exception to the same, accused No.1 is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

petitioner-accused No.1 submits that in the absence of any warrant, the act of the complaint witnesses 1 and

¶24

4 and the act of the other police personnel in apprehending the accused Nos. 5 and 6 is without authority of law and the said act is not done during the course of discharge of their official duties. Hence, he submits that filing of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is impermissible. He further submits that the abusive language alleged to have been used by the petitioner

¶25

– accused No.1 has not caused any breach of public peace and any other offences punishable under

¶26

¶27

Section 504. He further submits that though the alleged incident has taken place in a public place, the police during the course of investigation has not recorded statement of the independent eyewitnesses expect the official witnesses who are police personnel. Hence, he submits that the charge sheet is filed with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner-accused No.1.

¶28

On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that he charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of the alleged offence against petitioner – accused No.1 and does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The charge sheet material discloses that

¶32

there was no warrant issued against accused Nos. 5 and 6. Section 151 of Cr.P.C. empowers a police officer to arrest without orders from a jurisdictional Magistrate or with warrant, if it appears to such officer, that person is designing to commit a cognizable offence and that the commission of the said offence cannot be prevented otherwise. In the absence of any such warrant to arrest the said accused, the alleged incident has not taken place when the police were discharging their official duties. Hence in the absence of essential ingredients so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, the charge sheet filed for the said offence is impermissible.

¶33

6. To constitute an offence punishable under

¶34

Section 504 of IPC, the international insult must be of

¶35

¶36

such a degree that should result into break of public

¶37

peace or commission of any other offence. In the present case, the abusive language alleged to have been used by accused by petitioner – accused No.1 has not caused any breach of public peace or commission of any other offence.

¶38

The police during the course of

¶39

investigation have only recorded statement of police personnel who are interested witnesses by not recording any statement of independent eyewitnesses who had witnessed the alleged incident which implies that the charge sheet filed by the police is with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner – accused No.1.

¶40

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the

¶41

view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings

¶42

¶43

against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) Petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1310/2017, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Harihara is hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Bsv

Sri Mahantesha v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahantesha v. the State by

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

J a Ahmed Vs State by

Dr Gurukanth Rao N Vs Dr Ranjeetha Shenoy

Manjunatha Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K Vs the Station of Karnataka Rep by

Smt. Rekha Shetty Vs State by Puttur Town Police

Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka