Allowed

Smt. Susheela Bai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023CRL.P/101325/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings against petitioners accused of providing false information (IPC 143, 149) and disobidding an order (IPC 188). The court held that since the primary offence under Section 188 IPC requires a complaint by a public servant and not a police report, the entire case was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.1326/2018 are quashed.

Smt. Susheela Bai Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101325 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUSHEELA BAI W/O SURI D., AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC.PUBLIC SECTOR UNDETAKING. R/O. MAYOR BALLARI CITY CORPORATION, BALLARI, PERMANENT ADDRESS: HALAGAPPA STREET, KURIKMELA ROAD, #49 WARD NO.7, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶9

LAKSHMI DEVI W/O RAMADU V., AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, R/O. DEPUTY MAYOR BALLARI CITY CORPORATION, WARD NO. 15, K.C. ROAD, RAGHAVACHARI STREET, KATEGUDDA, VADDARAGERI, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶10

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.12.11 11:16:42 +0530

¶11

RAJKUMAR H.S. S/O SHEKHANNA, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, R/O. BANDIHATTI COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶12

VENKAT RAO S/O VENKATESHVARALU, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, R/O. AHAMBHAVI, AMPC CHECKPOST, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶13

PARVEEN BANU D/O GOUSE AHAM, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, R/O. BANDIMOTA, APMC CHECKPOST, 5^TH CROSS, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶15

BASAVARAJA GOWDA B. S/O GADILINGAPPA B., AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI, R/O. NEAR HULIGYAMMA TEMPLE, GOULERAHATII, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶16

RENUKA D/O KRISHNA K., AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER, CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI, R/O. KOTTALPALLI, 4^TH CROSS, S.N. PET, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶17

MALAN BEE D/O MOHAMMAD, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER, CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI R/O. DEVI NAGAR, 5^TH CROSS, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶18

KUMAR SWAMY B. S/O ANJINEYALU, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER, CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI, R/O. BESIDE IN SATYANARAYANA TEMPLE, S.N. PET, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶19

MARIDEVAIAH S/O SIDDHARAMAIAH, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER, CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI, R/O. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, 1^ST STAGE, MMTC COLONY, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶20

SUDHAKAR D. S/O DESAYI RUDRAMUNI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER, CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI, R/O. BESIDE IN DODDAMARKET, MARISWAMI MATHA, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶22

VIVEKANAND S/O SUDHAKAR M., AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, STHAYEE SAMHITI MEMBER, CORPORATION CITY, BALLARI, R/O. PATAKANDAM STREET, OPP. LITTLE BELL SCHOOL, BALLARI, PINCODE-583101.

¶23

… PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. L.S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR, GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI, R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, BALLARI.

¶27

NARAYANAPPA H.B., AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. GOVT, OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTED, R/O. CITY CORPORATION ELECTION OFFICER, BALLARI CITY-94, ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, BALLARY CITY.

¶28

… RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.0082/2018 P/U/SEC. 143, 341, 188, 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPLE CIVIL AND JMFC COURT, BALLARI IN CC NO.1326/2018 IN SO FAR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 AND 7 TO 13 ARE CONCERNED AND PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

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

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed praying to quash the charge sheet filed in Gandhi nagar Police Station in Crime No.82/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 188, 149, 341, of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”, for brevity) and proceedings in C.C.No.1326/20218.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

The respondent No.2 has filed first information and case came to be registered, on the basis of the first information in Crime No.82/2018 Gandhi nagar Police Station of Ballari, for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 149 of the IPC. Police after investigation filed charge sheet against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 149 and 341 of IPC. On the basis of the charge sheet, case came to be registered against these petitioners/accused for the aforesaid offences in

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶38

C.C.No.1326/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil

¶39

and JMFC Court, Ballari. Petitioners sought for quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings in the said criminal case.

¶40

Learned counsel for petitioners would contend

¶41

that the major offence alleged against these petitioners is Section 188 of the IPC and in order to take cognizance for the said offence, the complaint ought to have been filed by the public servant before jurisdictional Magistrate as required under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C”, for brevity). The case is registered against the petitioners/accused on the basis of the police report. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of M.VEERAPPA MOILY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ , wherein the proceedings of criminal case registered for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC is quashed holding that the complaint is required to be filed under Section 2D of the Cr.P.C and not on the basis of police report. He 1 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2237/2015 DECIDED ON 13.07.2015

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶43

further contended that other offences are incidental offences to the offence under Section 188 of the IPC and the learned Magistrate in the order of taking cognizance has not mentioned for what offences he has taken cognizance. Therefore, the proceedings against these petitioners in the criminal case required to be quashed.

¶44

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that petitioners are aware of the code of conduct and in spite of that, they have violated code of conduct committing the offence under Section 188 of the IPC. He fairly submits that insofar as order taking cognizance under Section 188 of the IPC by learned Magistrate cannot be sustained, as bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C is attracted.

¶45

As per the averments of the complaint filed by

¶46

the respondent No.2, petitioners have violated the code of conduct by bursting the fire crackers and by holding procession. On the basis of the first information report, the case has been registered for the offence under Sections

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶48

143, 188, and 149 of the IPC. The Co-ordinate Bench of

¶49

this Court in M.VEERAPPA MOILY’s case (supra), considering the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. held that public servant has to file complaint as required under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C and learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of Police report and quashed the proceedings of the criminal case registered for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC. In view of the above, filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC and taking cognizance based on the said Police report for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC is bad in law. Other offences alleged against these petitioners under Sections 143, 143 and 149 of the IPC are incidental to the offence under Section 188 of the IPC. In the order of taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has not mentioned for what offences he has taken cognizance, but ordered to register criminal case against petitioners. Therefore, taking

¶50

of cognizance without mentioning for what offence cognizance is taken is bad in law. The entire proceedings

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14229 CRL.P No. 101325 of 2023

¶52

against these petitioners in C.C.No.1326/2018 require to

¶53

be quashed. In the result, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The petition is allowed.

¶56

The entire proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No.1326/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, are quashed

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

AC CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt. Susheela Bai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Susheela Bai 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Veerayya S/O Veerabasayya Kochalapurmath Vs Balakrishna T. Magajikondi

K Thirumala S/O K. Honnurappa Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash S/O Kallappa Alias Kallangouda Bikkangoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Satish S/O. Irappa Shahapurkar Vs State of Karnataka

Girish S/O Gopalkrishnaprabhu Desai Vs Narayan S/O Laxman Patil

Sri Manjunath Hulmani Vs Sri Goudappa S/O Dundapa Barmani