Allowed

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023CRL.P/101200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the Karnataka Open Places Act, 1981, holding that the requisite notification bringing the area under the Act was missing, making the proceedings unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.2277/2022 pending in Chitwadgi P.S./Criminal Court are quashed.

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7988 CRL.P No. 101200 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101200 OF 2023 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED SOHAIL S/O MOHAMMED YUSOOF AGE. 24 YEARS, R/O. 24^TH WARD, ARAVINDA NAGARA, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA, KARNATAKA.

¶9

MOHAMMED YUSOOF @ M D YUSOOF S/O M D GOUSE, AGE. 24 YEARS, R/O. 24^TH WARD, BEHIND SHADI MAHAL, ARVIND NAGAR, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA, KARNATAKA.

¶10

… PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AZURUDDIN M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.08.02 10:22:10 +0530

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHITTIWADGI P.S., VIJAYANAGARA R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD-580011.

¶16

SMT. HEMAVATHI N.J., AGE. 42 YEARS, R/O. PBS & SON GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHITWADAGI HOSPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 2 IN C.C.NO. 2277/2022, CRIME NO. 39/2022 REGISTERED BY CHITWADGI POLICE STATION U/SEC. 3 OF KARNATAKA OPEN PLACES DISFIGUREMENT (PREVENTION) ACT 1981-PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7988 CRL.P No. 101200 of 2023

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.2277/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short).

¶25

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶26

A complaint comes to be registered by the Headmaster of

¶27

the Government Girls High School, Hosapete, Vijayanagara, narrating the fact that when all the students had left the school and the school had been closed for the day, the walls were clean, but when he entered the school premises, the walls were written “State General Council, CFI” and had stuck three posters of Joint Campus Front . Therefore, he seeks to register a compliant which becomes Crime No.39/2022 for the afore quoted offence. The Police after investigation have filed their charge sheet against the petitioners and therefore the concerned Court has registered C.C. No.2277/2022. The registration of the C.C. is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7988 CRL.P No. 101200 of 2023

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence under the Act could not have been laid against the petitioner as it is not one of those districts which have been notified to be coming under the Act, as is required in law. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶30

The learned HCGP though would seek to refute the submissions, but would admit the fact that no notification is issued, as is necessary under the Act, to bring in Hosapete Town under the ambit of the Act.

¶31

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶32

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. They lie in a narrow compass. What is alleged is offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:

¶33

“3. Penalty for unauthorised disfigurement by advertisement.- Whoever by himself or through another person affixes to, or erects, inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to pubic view any advertisement without the written permission of the

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7988 CRL.P No. 101200 of 2023

¶35

local authority having jurisdiction over such area, 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:

¶36

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any advertisement which,-

¶37

(i) is exhibited within the window of any building if the advertisement relates to the trade, profession or business carried on in that building; or

¶38

(ii) relates to the trade, profession or business carried on within the land or building upon or over which such advertisement is exhibited or to any sale or letting of such land or building or any effects therein or to any sale, entertainment or meeting to be held on or upon or in the same; or

¶39

(iii) relates to the name of the land or building, upon or over which the advertisement is exhibited, or to name of the owner or occupier of such land or building ; or

¶40

(iv) relates to the business of a railway administration and is exhibited within any railway station or upon any wall or other property of a railway administration.

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7988 CRL.P No. 101200 of 2023

¶42

(v) is affixed to or exhibited on any ancient and historical monument declared to be of national importance under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Central Act XXIV of 1958).”

¶43

For an incident to become an offence under Section 3 of the Act, the rigor of Section 1 of the Act will have to be noticed. Section 1 of the Act directs that to bring a place / local area within the ambit of the Act, a notification from the hands of the State Government is imperative. It is an admitted fact that Hosapete Town is not the one that is notified to be coming within the Act, for the respondents to allege that the petitioners have incurred themselves the wrath of Section 3 of the Act. In the light of the fact that there is no notification issued by the State bringing in Hosapete Town under the Act, further proceedings if permitted to continue would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid

¶45

ground, the petition deserves to succeed. Accordingly the following:

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7988 CRL.P No. 101200 of 2023

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is allowed.

¶49

The proceedings initiated against the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.2277/2022 in Crime No.39/2022 registered by Chitwadgi Police Station under Section 3 of the Act, pending on the file of the 3^rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete is quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Rsh/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak G Hebbar Vs the State of Karnataka

M a Sajeed Nawaz S/O. Abdul Hai Vs Althaf Ahamad S/O. Manjoor Ali Khaji Khatheeb

Dr. Sharanabassappa v. Gudli Vs the Government of Karnataka

Krishnaram Manaram Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Adumkarim Rijvi Vs State of Karnataka

Muzammil S/O Nazer Vs State of Karnataka