Allowed

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023CRL.P/2139/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against two accused for an offence under Section 160 IPC. The court held that since no statement from any member of the public was recorded to prove disturbance of peace, an essential element of the offence was missing. Continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.7374/2018 against accused Nos.8 and 9 were quashed.

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39670 CRL.P No. 2139 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANJIT KUMAR CHAUDHURI, S/O LATE PRABIR KUMAR CHAUDHURI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT JATTI DWARAKAMAI LAYOUT, ECC ROAD, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶9

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

¶10

REKHA (BHOWMIK) CHAUDHARI, W/O RANJIT KUMAR CHAUDHURI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT JATTI DWARAKAMAI LAYOUT, ECC ROAD, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39670 CRL.P No. 2139 of 2022

¶17

KEMPAMMA, A S I, WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VENKATSATHYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN C.C.NO.7374/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.160 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 160 of IPC.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 to 10 by forming one group and accused Nos.11 to 16 forming a rival group on 18.03.2018 in front of Villa No.10 were quarreling with each other and abusing each other. Thus, disturbing the public peace.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the essential element to constitute the commission of offence under Section 160 of IPC is conspicuously absent since the charge sheet material does not contain any statement of member of

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39670 CRL.P No. 2139 of 2022

¶27

the public stating that the public peace has been disturbed in view of fighting between the rival group in a public place. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶28

Learned HCGP for respondent-State submits that the petitioner along with other accused were fighting in a public place which constitutes an offence under Section 160 of IPC, and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence, and the same does not warrant interference.

¶29

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶30

Section 159 of IPC states that when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturbs the public peace, they are said to commit an affray. Section 160 IPC deals with punishment for the commission of affray.

¶31

To constitute an offence under Section 159 of IPC fighting in a public place should have resulted in disturbing public peace. In the instant case, the police during the course of investigation have not recorded any statement of the member of the public to substantiate that in view of the fighting that had taken place has resulted in disturbing of public peace. Therefore, in the absence of any essential element to constitute commission of offence under Section 160 IPC, the continuation of criminal proceedings, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:39670 CRL.P No. 2139 of 2022

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶36

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7374/2018 on the file of I Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural Court, Bengaluru insofar it relates to accused Nos.8 and 9 stands quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri 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

Bonito Designs Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Santosh Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka

Nasir @ Munna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gomi @Gomee@ Gomee Shailesh Vs State by