Allowed

Afroz v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2023CRL.P/2104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings. The court held that cognizance was impermissible as the offence fell under Section 195 Cr.P.C. without a required written complaint from the issuing officer. Consequently, the entire proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.55/2018 for offences under Sections 186 and 332 of IPC on file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur stands quashed.

Afroz Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:32526 CRL.P No. 2104 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2104 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AFROZ

¶9

S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT: V.P. BORE, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MARIGOWDA POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE-26, HUNSURU TOWN POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. WAHEED M.M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 186 AND 332 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR, OF HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:32526 CRL.P No. 2104 of 2023

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332 of IPC.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, when the complainant was on duty to monitor the accused in Crime No.283/2015 , at that time, he noticed one Afroz and Syed Pasha were roaming around Hunsur Town by violating the prohibition order, and when the complainant took Afroz to the Police Station, he abused them in a filthy language and tried to cause self-injuries and also obstructed the complainant from discharging his duties.

¶25

The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.

¶27

Section 195 of Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence, which specifies that, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant.

¶28

A reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that, to take cognizance, there should a

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32526 CRL.P No. 2104 of 2023

¶30

written complaint and such complaint should have been filed by either by Officer issuing the promulgation order or the Officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant.

¶31

Therefore, the cognizance taken on the basis of final report submitted by the Police under Section 173(2) IPC is impermissible, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶32

The petitioner is also sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka –vsHemareddy @Vemareddy and Another , reported in (1981) 2 SCC 185 at para 8 has held as follows:

¶33

“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”.

¶34

Reading of the above decision makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:32526 CRL.P No. 2104 of 2023

¶37

the other offences should be upheld. Therefore, the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance stands vitiated.

¶38

10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed;

¶39

Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.55/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 332 of IPC, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunsur, stands quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Afroz v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afroz 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

Sri. M S Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh M Vs State of Karnataka by

Aditya S Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Lenkappa Vs the State by Sub Inspector of Police

R Maruthesh @ Maruthi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Supreeth T Vs the State by the Station House Officer