Allowed

Sri Nilakanta T Y v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2022CRL.P/5563/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC praying to quash proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 341, 504, and 353. The court quashed the proceedings citing false implication, unexplained delay in creating the todor, and holding that obstruction does not attract Section 353 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.366/2017 are quashed.

Sri Nilakanta T Y Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5563 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NILAKANTA T Y, S/O. YOGESHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. CHANNEGOWDABEEDI, BELURU TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN - 573 115. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI SUYOG HERALE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BELUR POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTSRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUIDLING, BANGALORE -560001.

¶11

SRI. PARAMESHWARA

¶12

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER

¶13

AGED: NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BELUR POLICE STATION, BELUR TALUK,

¶14

HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 218. ....RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.LEENA C SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP)

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.366/2017 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., BELUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,504,353 OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Belur Police Station,

¶21

Belur Taluk registered the first information report against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 & 353 of IPC alleging that, when the Police questioned the petitioner as to why he had parked his motor cycle in no parking area, the petitioner abused the Police in filthy language and obstructed the Police in performing his official duty. It was further alleged that, the petitioner pulled him when he was in uniform. The alleged incident took place on 01.05.2017. However, the mahazar was drawn after the lapse of two months i.e. on 12.07.2017. The Police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 & 353 of IPC. Hence, this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the first information report are not only false but does not constitute the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 & 353 of IPC against the petitioner. He further submits that the mahazar was drawn after the lapse of two months from the date of alleged incident without offering any explanation for the delay and as such the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is not sustainable in law.

¶25

On the other hand, leaned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner has obstructed the Police from discharging his official duty and also having abused him in filthy language, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner is justified.

¶26

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

-:4:-

¶28

A perusal of the first information report discloses that, when the Police questioned the petitioner for having parked his motor cycle in no parking area, the petitioner obstructed the Police from discharging his duty and abused him in filthy language. It was further alleged that the petitioner pulled the Police when he was in uniform. However, the mahazar with regard to the incident was drawn after the lapse of two months without offering any explanation for the delay in drawing the mahazar. Hence, it implies that the petitioner is falsely implicated. Even otherwise, the allegation of obstructing the Police from discharging his official duty cannot constitute an offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, but to the utmost its an offence punishable under section 186 of IPC which is non cognizable and bailable which is not heinous and serious in nature. Hence, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

-:5:-

¶32

ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.366/2017 pending on the file of

¶33

the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Belur, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 353 of IPC is hereby quashed.

¶34

In view of the disposal of criminal petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and stands

¶35

disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri Nilakanta T Y v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nilakanta T Y 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

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Smt J Jayamma Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Sri Yogesh M S Vs State by Its

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Amit Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka by

A.S Bheemappa Vs P.S Guruprasad