Allowed

Athavulla v. State by Belthangady Police Station

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023CRL.P/1891/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed proceedings in CC No.348/2015 against the petitioners, relying on reasons rendered in a co-ordinate bench regarding non-lodgment of FIR by owner, bar under Section 149 IPC, and lack of permission for non-cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.348/2015 against the petitioners stand quashed. I.A.1/2023 is disposed.

Athavulla Vs State by Belthangady Police Station — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:33608 CRL.P No. 1891 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1891 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ATHAVULLA @ MOAHMMAD YOOSUF ATHAVULLA S/O SAIFULLA U.K., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT #2-23, UNNALU HOUSE, KOYYUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214.

¶10

APEEZ @ ABDUL HAFEEZ S/O YUSUF, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT 1-280, A H MANZIL MOORJE, PILATHABETTU VILLAGE, PUNJALKATTE POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶15

Date: 2023.09.21 11:21:55 +0530

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BUILDING -01.

¶18

N.J. JOSEPH, TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, KSRTC BUS STAND, UJIRE, BELTHANGADI TALUQ, D.K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-574240.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. YASHODHA K.P., HCGP)

¶21

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.348/2015 REGISTERED BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:33608 CRL.P No. 1891 of 2023

¶24

PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.447,149 OF IPC AND SEC.31 AND 103 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD BENCH, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC No.348/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short).

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Abdul Ansar P. appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Yashodha K.P. appearing for respondent No.1-State.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that qua accused Nos.2 and 3, this Court in Criminal Petition No.402/2019 disposed on 08.09.2021 and Criminal Petition No.7955/2022 disposed on 20.09.2022 has quashed the proceedings. The petitioners in the subject petition are accused Nos.1 and 4.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:33608 CRL.P No. 1891 of 2023

¶32

For the very reasons rendered in Criminal Petition

¶33

No.7955/2022, the petition qua accused Nos.1 and 4 deserves to succeed, as the allegations are common and the facts are common and the reasons rendered therein would become applicable to the case at hand as well.

¶34

This Court in Criminal Petition No.7955/2022 has

¶35

held as follows:

¶36

“ The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.348/2015 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K., for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 31 and 103 of the Karnataka Police Act.

¶37

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

¶38

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7999/2019, disposed of on 04.02.2022, has quashed the proceedings qua accused No.2.

¶39

4. The petitioner, in the case at hand, is accused No.3. The reasons so rendered by the co-ordinate Bench is as follows:

¶40

“4. In the present case, the KSRTC, who is the owner of the property in question has not lodged the impugned FIR. The second respondent who is no way concerned to

¶41

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:33608 CRL.P No. 1891 of 2023

¶42

the property in question has lodged the FIR. Section 441 of I.P.C. specifies that, the offence of Criminal Trespass is said to have been committed when a person enters upon a property in possession of another with an intention to intermediate such person. The owner of the premises not having lodged the FIR, the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC is not sustainable in law.

¶43

5. The charge sheet filed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC, however, to attract the said offence, it is required that there should be unlawfull assembly of five or more members. In the present case, charge sheet is filed against four members including this petitioner. Therefore, impugned charge sheet filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC is also not sustainable in law.

¶44

6. Sections 31 and 103 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 are non-cognizable and bailable. Hence, FIR registered against the petitioner is not sustainable in law, since, respondent No.2 has not taken permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. before lodging FIR against the petitioner.”

¶45

5. The allegation against the petitioner is identical to what is alleged against accused No.2, which the subject matter of the petition before the co-ordinate Bench. The offence was the one punishable under Section 149 of the IPC. If the co-ordinate Bench has held Section 149 of the IPC would not be applicable to accused No.2, the same would not be applicable to accused No.3 as well.

¶46

6. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate

¶47

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:33608 CRL.P No. 1891 of 2023

¶48

Bench, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.”

¶49

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶50

would admit that the reasons so rendered qua accused Nos.2 and 3 would become applicable to the present accused Nos.1 and 4 as well.

¶51

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶54

ii. The proceedings in CC No.348/2015 pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. qua the petitioners, stand quashed.

¶55

I.A.1/2023 is disposed, as a consequence

¶56

kmv ct:bck

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

Athavulla v. State by Belthangady Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athavulla v. State by Belthangady Police Station

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

Rudrapathi Raju Rajesh Vs M/S Sunara Paper Agencies

Sri Anil S/O Basappa Awati Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivangouda Nagangouda Kallangoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Shrenikkumar N Baldota Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ramgad Minerals and Mining Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited Mining Private Licence No. 2593 Vs the State of Karnataka