Allowed

Dr H D Ranganath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023CRL.P/1451/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed criminal proceedings alleging violation of Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020, holding that the complaint failed to make out an offence as there was no obstruction of a public servant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.4749/2021 and C.C.No.5091/2021 stood quashed.

Dr H D Ranganath Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2022

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2022

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

DR. H.D.RANGANATH

¶12

S/O SRI DR. DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶13

MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY KUNIGAL CONSTITUENCY TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶14

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

¶15

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

NO.758, 3^RD STAGE, 10^TH MAIN

BASAVESHWARANAGAR

BENGALURU – 560 079.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVCHARAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶24

BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER THE KUNIGAL POLICE STATION KUNIGAL SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶25

2 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶26

MR. P.H.GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT PADUVAGARE GRAM AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4749/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 5(4) OF THE KARNATAKA EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT AND SECTION 143, 149 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C, ANNEXURE-B AND ANNEXURE-A.

¶30

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2022

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

JAGADISH B. N, S/O D.NAGARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ADVOCATE RESIDING AT KHB COLONY KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.

¶33

DEVARAJU S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PRESENT: GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER R/AT BEERUGANAHALI VILLAGE, YEDIYURU HOBLI,

¶34

3 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶35

KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 142.

¶36

NARASHIMAMURTHY C.N, S/O NARASHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT CHANNENAHALLY, C.S.PURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 216.

¶37

THIMMEGOWDA @ PAPU S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, YEDIYURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 142.

¶38

PANDU G.S, S/O SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, YEDIYURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 142.

¶39

…PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI VIKYATH B, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

STATE BY AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE.

¶43

4 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶44

2. D.NARAYANA

¶45

S/O LATE DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BEGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶46

KUNIGAL TOWN – 572 130.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI MAHESH B SHETTY., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI R.SHIVCHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶49

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5091/2021 (CR.NO.84/2021) PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, KUNIGAL.

¶50

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The incident that led to registration of crime in both these cases being common, the cases are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶53

Heard Sri R.Shivcharan, learned counsel appearing for

¶54

the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022 and respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022, Sri B. Vikyath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022 and respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022 and Sri Mahesh Shetty,

¶55

5 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶56

learned High Court Government appearing for respondent No.1 in both the petitions.

¶57

Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶58

Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022:

¶59

3(1). The petitioner claims to be a medical practitioner

¶60

and is a surgeon in the discipline of Orthopedics. The petitioner enters into public life by contesting Kunigal Assembly Constituency in 2018 general elections, in which, he emerged as a returning candidate. With the onset of COVID-19, certain measures were taken up by Government of India and the State Government to tackle the situation during the pandemic. On 18.06.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., one Ramesh meets with an accident and dies. Though considerable time had lapsed, the Police/1^st respondent are alleged to have kept quiet without conduct of post-mortem of the deceased. Therefore, the family members of the deceased as well as other people of the vicinity gathered before the 1^st respondent/Police Station and were agitating against the inaction of the 1^st respondent in not

¶61

6 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶62

carrying out post-mortem of the deceased. The petitioner who was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Taluk coming to know of the problem, rushed to the spot and also said to have indicated that in view of the Standard Operating Procedure in force, the people who have gathered at the spot, should disperse or stay there maintaining social distance. In view of the said incident, a complaint is registered on 29-06-2021 by a party worker belonging to the other party. This becomes an offence against the petitioner for the one punishable under Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 (‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner along with 12 others are alleged to have violated the Standard Operating Procedure, which was in force at that point in time. The police after investigation file a charge sheet as well in C.C.No.4749 of 2021. It is those proceedings that are called in question in the subject petition.

¶63

Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022:

¶64

3(2) The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.5091 of 2021. The incident that led to

¶65

7 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶66

registration of crime is the same as is obtaining in the companion petition. The complainant herein is a member of the party belonging to the party to which the petitioner in the companion petition belongs. The incident is the same. Therefore, it would not require further reiteration of what is narrated hereinabove. The offence alleged is also the same as one punishable under Section 5(4) of the Act. The said incident leads to the 2^nd respondent registering a complaint and the complaint becoming a crime in Crime No.84 of 2021. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet in C.C.No.5091 of 2021. Therefore, in both these cases charge sheets are filed for offence punishable under Section 5(4) of the Act.

¶67

To consider the issue in the lis, it is germane to notice

¶68

Section 5 of the Act. It reads as follows:

¶69

“5. Prohibition of Contravention or obstruction of Public Servant. -

¶70

(1) No person, institution or company shall contravene or disobey any of the provisions of section 4, rules, regulation or order made under this Act.

¶71

(2) No person shall obstruct any officer or any public servant while acting or purporting to act or discharging any duty in pursuance to any provisions

¶72

8 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶73

of this Act, rules, regulations or orders made there under.

¶74

(3) No person shall indulge in any act of violence against a public servant or cause any damage or loss to any public or private property during an epidemic.

¶75

(4) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (1), (2) or (3) shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to five years and with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

¶76

(5) Whoever, while committing an act of violence against a public servant, causes grievous hurt as defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) to such person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to seven years and with fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to five lakh rupees.”

¶77

Section 5 (4) of the Act deals with Prohibition of Contravention

¶78

of Obstruction of Public Servant. It mandates that whoever contravenes any of the provisions under Sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of Section 5 of the Act, he shall be punished in terms of sub-section (4). Therefore, the crux of the provision is that, there should be obstruction of a public servant. There is no

¶79

claim by any public servant that his movement has been restricted. The entire complaint does not make out any offence

¶80

9 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶81

with regard to the ingredients of sub-section (1), (2) or (3) of Section 5. Therefore, there being no ingredient of Section 5 of the Act present in the case at hand, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of law against the petitioners in both the cases and would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶82

Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL¹ in the circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:

¶83

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶84

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶85

10 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶86

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶87

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶88

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶89

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶90

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶91

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

¶92

11 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶93

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶94

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶95

(Emphasis supplied)

¶96

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforementioned case and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, even if the complaints are taken in its true sense, it does not make out ingredients of the offence under Section 5(4) of the Act.

¶97

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶98

O R D E R

¶99

(i) Criminal petitions are allowed.

¶100

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.4749 of 2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Kunigal, concerning Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022, stand quashed.

¶101

(iii) The proceedings in C.C.No.5091 of 2021 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at

¶102

12 - CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022

¶103

Kunigal, concerning Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022 stand quashed.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT:SS

Dr H D Ranganath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr H D Ranganath 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri B S Yeddyurappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Krishna E Campus Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Rawat Vs State of Karnataka

Pillamadhappa Vs State of Karnataka

Pg Setty Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director

Mysore Horticultural Society (R) Vs the Government of Karnataka