Allowed

Smt. Nandini Matiyani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022CRL.P/794/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash orders taking cognizance against the petitioner. Court quashed proceedings regarding rash driving and mischief charges, finding the acts did not attract criminal liability under cited IPC provisions and constituting an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of the order dated 01.08.2018, proceedings in C.C.No.5645/2018, and the FIR in Crime No.297/2017.

Smt. Nandini Matiyani Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.794 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. NANDINI MATIYANI W/O NEERAJ MATIYANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT: #1C, 506 DIVYASHREE ELAN SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 035 ... PETITIONER

¶8

[BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SR. ADV. FOR SRI. ARUN B.K., ADV.]

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL - 560 109

¶11

2 . SRI SABU

¶12

S/O SRI K T RAHEEM JAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.251, ABU HURAIRA MASJID ROAD, AVALAHALLI BENGALURU – 560051 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

[BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 17.08.2021]

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2018 WHEREBY THE LEARNED II A.C.J.M TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE PURSUANT TO THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CR.NO.297/2017 OF THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427,279,337 OF IPC AND SEC.187 OF THE INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.5645/2018 pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.297 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 279 of IPC and Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

¶19

Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶20

The brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

¶21

¶22

The petitioner is an animal rights activist and an animal welfare officer of Animal Welfare Board of India which the petitioner claims to be a registered organization. On 14-10-2017 the petitioner receives some information with regard to 14 desi cattle hidden near Abrar Medical Stores kept ready for their slaughter. On receipt of the said information, the petitioner visits the spot for verification and on verification it was found that the said cattle were in fact slated to be slaughtered. The petitioner then reports the incident to the Police immediately and the police had assured that cattle would be rescued by the end of the day and she was asked to assist them in identifying the location. The petitioner and an associate reached the spot to identify and rescue the cattle at which point in time, it is the case of the petitioner that about 150 to 200 people assembled at the spot and the mob starting pelting stones or hurling bricks at the petitioner’s car which resulted in severe damage to the car. The petitioner claims to have escaped mob fury with great difficulty. Based upon the said incident, the petitioner registers

¶23

¶24

crime in Crime No.295 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 427 r/w 149 of the IPC. The complaint was registered on 14-10-2017.

¶25

On coming to know that the petitioner had registered a complaint on 14-10-2017, the complainant who was a part of the mob filed a counter complaint against the petitioner on 16-10-2017 in Crime No.297 of 2017 alleging that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused damage to the property belonging to the complainant to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. The police after investigation also filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 427, 279 and 337 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on 01-08-2018 and issues summons to the petitioner. It is then the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition challenging entire proceedings in C.C.No.5645 of 2018.

¶26

¶27

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶28

would contend with vehemence that the petitioner with the assistance of police sought to rescue 14 cattle which were illegally being taken to slaughter house and was badly attacked by the mob. Based on the said incident a complaint was registered by the petitioner immediately on the date of the alleged incident. As a counter-blast, the impugned complaint is registered against the petitioner. Without looking into these facts, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and set in motion the criminal law. The learned senior counsel would submit that registration of the complaint is nothing but a counter-blast to the registration of the complaint of the petitioner without explaining as to why there was a delay in registration of the complaint.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to justify the action of the police in registering the complaint and the learned Magistrate taking

¶30

¶31

cognizance of the offence. He would submit that it is a matter for

¶32

the petitioner to face trial and come out clean.

¶33

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶34

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶35

The afore-narrated dates and events are not in dispute and therefore are not reiterated. The entire issue is triggered on account of an incident that has happened on 14-10-2017 and attack of the mob against the petitioner. The petitioner immediately registers a complaint on the very night of happening of the incident. It is germane to notice the complaint registered by the petitioner and it reads as follows:

¶36

“To 14/10/2017 The SHO 22 : 50 hrs Thalaghattapura PS Bangalore.

¶37

Subject:Complaint regarding attack and threat to lift, rioting, assault on a woman by illegal butchers at Avalahalli.

¶38

Respected Sir,

¶39

¶40

I, Nandini W/o Neeraj aged 45 years and Rijil S/o Valsar aged 33 years would hereby like to bring to your notice that on 14^th October 2017,at around 7:25 p.m., we report to SHO of this station, Mr.Y Gowda about the illegal SHs being run in the lane opposite to Abrak Medicals in Avalahalli.

¶41

After we gave this report to the police, we were told that 15 police men of the rank of officers had already reached the said spot and were trying to rescue 14 desi cattle hidden near the illegal slaughter house.

¶42

Being well aware of where the hidden spot was, we requested the police to accompany us to facilitate spotting of the hiding place of these cattle. Stallions

¶43

On the reassurances that 15 officers were present there, we proceeded to the stallion by the name of Mahesh and another name not known. At the spot we were expecting 15 police officers with a vehicle for transporting of cattle and also vehicles in which police would have arrived, instead we found ourselves surrounded by a murderous mob in a dead end near the slaughter house and the place where 11 cattle were hidden in inhuman conditions.

¶44

Before we know it, we were attacked from all sides of our car (KA-01-MD5751, black Innova) which had two police constables in it with us. Construction boulders, the size of 4 times of clay bricks and nearly 10 kgs weight were thrown at us, which broke the window panes of and left the rest of the body of the car in shatters.

¶45

Injuries sustained by us are as follows:

¶46

1) Nandini: Entire right arm has been badly injured due to a large seized boulder which hit my right arm and landed in my lap.

¶47

2) Riji : Boulder hit on left arm and boulder hit on left side of face

¶48

¶49

We would like to bring to your notice that the mob was around 150-200 people attacked us with the intent to assault and kill us. This incident happened around 9 pm.

¶50

We would like you to register a complaint under IPC 120B, 147, 149, 151, 152, 295A, 352, 354, 350, 304 R/w 34 in this matter.

¶51

Yours sincerely Sd/Nandini M 9880212545 Received complaint dt.14.10.17 at about 23.45 pm and registered in Crime No.295/17 u/s 143, 147, 323, 354, 324, 427 R/s 149 IPC Sd/- ”

¶52

The complaint is in emphatic detail of what happened on 14-10-2017. It also narrates that the petitioner and others who

¶53

had gone to rescue cattle were themselves beaten up and the petitioner to escape mob fury had to flee away from the spot driving the car allegedly at high speed. The first complaint was registered by the petitioner narrating everything in graphic detail. As a counter-blast the other complaint is registered by the complainant who was one of the members of the mob. The offence alleged is under Sections 427, 279 and 337 of the IPC against the petitioner. The aforesaid provisions of law read as follows:

¶54

¶55

“427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees .—Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¶56

279. Rash driving or riding on a public way .— Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

¶57

337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others .—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

¶58

Section 427 of the IPC punishes a person who commits mischief

¶59

causing loss or damage to the property. Section 279 of the IPC deals with rash driving or riding in a public way so as to endanger human life. Section 337 of the IPC punishes a person who by his/her act endangers life and personal safety of others. In the considered view of this Court none of these provisions get attracted to the case at hand. The product of investigation i.e., the charge sheet, summary of which would indicate that the

¶60

¶61

petitioner trying to rescue the cattle had caused loss of Rs.18,000/- was also given up at the time of filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the allegation of causing loss is not necessary to be considered in the case at hand.

¶62

What remains to be considered is, the injury allegedly having sustained by the complainant. The charge sheet material placed before this Court clearly indicates that injuries to the complainant were simple in nature and the petitioner also had sustained injuries as it was a mob fury. No act of the petitioner is alleged to have endangered anybody’s life under Section 279 or 337 of the IPC to be invoked against the petitioner. The petitioner went to the spot only to rescue cattle from being taken to the slaughter house. This has led to altercation between the petitioner and the complainant and the like. The delay of 2 days in registering the complaint in the peculiar facts of this case would demonstrate that it is registered as a counter-blast to what the petitioner has registered. Therefore, finding no allegation that would touch upon the ingredients of the

¶63

¶64

provisions, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶65

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 01.08.2018, whereby the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case pursuant to the final report filed by respondent No.1 in Crime No.297/2017, the proceedings in C.C.No.5645/2018 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the FIR in Crime No.297/2017 of Thalaghattapura Police station stand quashed against the petitioner.

¶66

In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 also

¶67

stands disposed.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

bkp CT:MJ

Smt. Nandini Matiyani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nandini Matiyani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devala Somashekara Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. D Roopa Vs Sri. H N Sathyanarayana Rao

Sri Honnappa G C Vs State by

Sri.Venkatesh M Vs State by

Mr Sharad Jayaprakash Vs the State by

Sri Suresh G Vs the State of Karnataka