Allowed

Dr Prabhakar Bhat Kalladka v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2022WP/32238/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Karnataka High Court allowed four writ petitions filed under Articles 226/226 Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed criminal complaints, FIRs, charge sheets, and pending court proceedings across four cases where the State Government granted prosecution sanction without inclusion of facts or application of mind, violating the requirement of a speaking order unde

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned proceedings in CC Nos. 387/2017, 882/2017, 1059/2017, 1060/2017 quashed.

Dr Prabhakar Bhat Kalladka Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.37680/2017 A/W WRIT PETITION NOS.31371/2017, 32237/2017, 32238/2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

IN W.P. NO.37680/2017:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. PRABHAKAR BHAT KALLADKA SON OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KALLADKA HOUSE, BANTWAL TALUK-574 211, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (CRIMES), HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR BANTWAL POLICE STATION, BANTWAL, D.K. DISTRICT-574 211.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 GRANTING SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE SUO-MOTO COMPLAINT, F.I.R. AND THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.105/2014 REGISTERED BY THE R-3 POLICE AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.387/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶20

IN W.P.NO.31371/2017:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

DR. PRABHAKAR BHAT SON OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDENT OF KALLADKA HOSUE BANTWAL TALUK-574 211 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (CRIMES), HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUTTUR TOWN POLICE PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201.

¶29

SRI ASHRAF SON OF SRI ABDUL KHADAR

¶30

¶31

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS (MEMBER, DISTRICT COMMITTEE POPULAR FRONT OF INDIA, PUTTUR) PADIL HOUSE, HALADY PUTTUR TALUK-574 201, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SHAIK MOHD ANNUS, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2017 ISSUED BY R-1 GRANTING SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.7/2015 REGISTERED BY THE R-3 POLICE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY R-4 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.882/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT, AT ANNEXURE-B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY.

¶35

IN W.P.NO.32237/2017:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

DR. PRABHAKAR BHAT KALLADKA SON OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDENT OF KALLADKA HOUSE BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶42

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (CRIMES) HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶43

¶44

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VITLA POLICE STATION BANTWALA CIRCLE, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶45

SRI N. ABDULLA NADAJE SON OF SRI IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NADAJE MANE, KOKALA MANCHI POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SHAIK MOHD ANNUS, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 GRANTING SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO; QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.25/2014 REGISTERED BY THE R-3 POLICE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R-4 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1059/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, DK DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶49

IN W.P.NO.32238/2017:

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

DR. PRABHAKAR BHAT KALLADKA SON OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDENT OF KALLADKA HOUSE BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶52

...PETITIONER

¶53

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶56

¶57

HOME DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶58

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (CRIMES), HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶59

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BANTWALA TOWN POLICE STATION BANTWALA CIRCLE D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶60

SRI ABOOBAKKAR SIDDIQ SON OF SRI UMARABBA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ADDEDI HOUSE, SHANTHIYANGADY B. MOODA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK - 574 201, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶61

...RESPONDENTS

¶62

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SHAIK MOHD ANNUS, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶63

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 GRANTING SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO; QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.101/2014 REGISTERED BY THE R-3 POLICE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R-4 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1060/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, DK DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶64

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

¶66

O R D E R

¶67

Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, the same are taken up together for disposal by common order.

¶68

WP No.37680/2017:

¶69

Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC.

¶70

WP No.31371/2017:

¶71

Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 153A and 505(2) of IPC.

¶72

WP No.32237/2017:

¶73

Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Section 153A and 295A of IPC.

¶74

WP No.32238/2017:

¶75

Charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under

¶76

Section 153A of IPC.

¶77

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction to prosecute the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is not a speaking order as specified under Section 196 of Cr.PC. Hence,

¶78

¶79

he submits that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction is not sustainable in law.

¶80

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that after perusing the material placed before him has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submits that the application of mind before passing an order granting sanction is not mandatory when the material placed along with the requisition clearly disclose the commission of offence alleged against the petitioners.

¶81

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶82

8. Section 196 of Cr.PC specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under 153A of Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Perusal of the impugned order granting sanction as specified under Section 196A of Cr.PC

¶83

¶84

indicates that the 2nd respondent without application of mind and without assigning any reason has passed the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. A coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24900/2018 (DD 27.1.2020) has held as follows:

¶85

"12. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the sanction order of Government dated 21.06.2013, it indicates that it has only referred the sending of material and contents of the complaint. Thereafter, stated that the statement of the witnesses and other things, constitute an offence under Section 196 of the IPC. In order to constitute an offence, there must be a sanction of Central Government or the State Government and without there being any sanction; no Court shall take the cognizance of the offence. No doubt the sanction order has been produced. A fair perusal of the sanction order produced by the prosecution indicates that the requisite materials constitute the alleged offences and are not placed before the sanctioning Authority. The sanction has been accorded only on the basis of the requisition made by the DGP and IGP and the said order does not refer to the facts and statement of the witnesses for having perused the same and without satisfying the sanction order itself has been issued. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the said Section 196 does not say that there must be an application of mind. But when the sanction has to be issued, the object and spirit of the Section if it is taken into consideration, then the frivolous and a false complaint should not be encouraged as it affects the tranquility and the peace of the country in that light, the said provisions has been made. Entire material if it is perused, it indicates that where he has seen the intention of the accused and where he has satisfied and also has not been specifically stated that it is

¶86

¶87

one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence. In the absence of such material, the sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind before issuing the sanction order dated 21.06.2013. Looking from any angle, the materials produced does not constitute an offence so as to proceed against the accused."

¶88

In view of language contained in Section 196 of

¶89

Cr.PC which clearly specifies that it is incumbent on the State Government to pass speaking orders clearly recording reasons while justifying permission to prosecute any citizen and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24900/2018, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is one without application of mind and the same requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

i) Writ petitions are allowed:

¶92

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.387/2017 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangadi, Dakshina Kannada in WP No.37680/2017, CC No.882/2017 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada in WP No.31371/2017, CC No.1059/2017 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge

¶93

¶94

and JMFC, Bantwal, D K District in WP No.32237/2017 and CC No.1060/2017 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D K District in WP No.32238/2017 are hereby quashed.

¶95

Sd/JUDGE

¶96

bkm

Dr Prabhakar Bhat Kalladka v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Prabhakar Bhat Kalladka 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

Sri v Shashidhar Vs State of Karnataka by Yelahanka

Sri B C Kemapaiah Vs State of Karnataka

D Ramachandra Vs M/S Max Worth Realty India Ltd.

Zaheeda Begam Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Shrikanth Ravindra Vs Smt. Padarathy S. Sowmya

Mohammed Zakir Vs Smt Shabana