Allowed

Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022WP/33635/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash FIR under various IPC sections. Court held FIR under Section 188 IPC void due to lack of Court complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC. Relying on precedents, quashed entire FIR as offences formed one transaction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No.178/2017 registered by Bantwal Town Police Station insofar as it relates to petitioners acquitted No.1 to 5 is hereby quashed.

Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal 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 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.33635/2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SATHYAJEETH SURATHKAL S/O VASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SHAKI, BEHIND HOTEL SURAJ INTERNATIONAL SURATHKAL - 575014.

¶8

SRI HARISH PUNJA S/O MAUTTANA POONJA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MIKILA NILAYA GARDADY VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214.

¶9

SRI MURALI KRISHNA HASANTHADKA S/O RAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BALNAD VILLAGE, PUTTUR- 574 201.

¶10

SHARAN PUMPWELL S/O RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D.NO.1/12, KANKANADI BYPASS ROAD PUMPWELL, MANGALORE-575002.

¶11

PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS "DIVYA NIVAS", D.NO.1-140 PUMPWELL, 1ST CROSS, KANKANADI, MANGALORE - 575002.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, BANTWAL D.K. DISTRICT - 574211.

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE COMPLAINT AND F.I.R. REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.178/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 353, 504, 427, 188, 308, 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 2A OF THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES ACT, 1981 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXUREA & B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

FIR was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 504, 427, 188, 308, 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 alleging that when the prohibition order under Section 144 of Cr.PC was in force, the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 and other accused during a procession formed an illegal unlawful assembly and tried to assault the police, who were on

¶23

¶24

duty and public by pelting stones resulting in breach of public peace. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC only upon a complaint in writing by the Court or by such Authorized Officer of that Court and as such, the registration of FIR by the police for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC is one without authority of law.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners having taken out a procession and have pelted stones on the police, who were on the duty, and have committed the aforesaid offence and the registration of FIR cannot be faulted.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC only upon a

¶29

¶30

complaint in writing by the Authorized Officer as prescribed under Section 195 of Cr.PC. Hence, the FIR registered by the police for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC is without authority of law.

¶31

The next question that arises for consideration is whether FIR stands vitiated only insofar as the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the case of State of Karnataka - vs- Hemareddy reported in (1981) 2 SCC 185 has held as follows:

¶32

"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed. It is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."

¶33

A reading of the above judgment makes it clear that

¶34

the if offences form part of the transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.PC, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for

¶35

¶36

the other offences should be upheld. Therefore, the registration of FIR for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and other penal offences require to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶39

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.178/2017 registered

¶40

by the Bantwal Town Police Station, DK District, insofar as it relates to petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 is hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

bkm

Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal 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

Mohammed Nisham @ Nisham Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Subbarao R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushruta Vishrathi Dhama Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sharan @ Sharan Pumpwell Vs the State of Karnataka