Allowed

Musthafa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023CRL.P/234/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition allowed to quash proceedings forIPC 269,271 and Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act 5(1). Court held no proof petitioner had COVID-19 for Section 269 offence. Investigation by Sub-Inspector violated Section 9 of Epidemic Diseases Act requiring Inspector rank.

What did the court decide?

Impugned criminal proceeding in CC No. 388/2022 in the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, NR Pura, Chikmagalur District, is quashed.

Musthafa Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27056 CRL.P No. 234 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 234 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUSTHAFA S/O MOHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A MAGUNDI VILLAGE N.R. PURA TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 134.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

BY BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01.

¶15

POLICE OFFICER

¶16

BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION N.R. PURA TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-34.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K S ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.388/2022 ON THE FILE

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:27056 CRL.P No. 234 of 2023

¶22

OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE BALEHONNUR POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 269, 274 OF IPC AND SECTION 5(1) OF KARNATAKA EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner - accused is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 271 of IPC and Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused, had kept open his grocery shop beyond 12.00 midnight in violation of the Standing Operating Procedure during COVID-19 pandemic. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.

¶27

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

¶28

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC, a person must have acted negligently to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. In the instant case, the charge sheet material does not contain any material that, the petitioner was tested positive of COVID-19 so as to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:27056 CRL.P No. 234 of 2023

¶30

¶31

5. Section 9 of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act deals with cognizance, investigation and trial of offences. SubSection (ii) of Section 9 specifies that any case registered under section 5 or section 6 shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector. In the instant case, the Police Sub-Inspector has conducted the investigation for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the said Act. Hence, the charge sheet laid in violation of Clause (ii) to Section 9 of the Act stands vitiated.

¶32

In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of conviction of the petitioner - accused No.1 is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.388/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, NR Pura, Chikmagaluru District, is hereby quashed.

¶36

BKM

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

Musthafa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa 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

H Hamza Vs State of Karnataka

N Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Radhakrishna Kamath, Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand v Vs State by Ccb (Eow) Bangalore

Yogananda T Vs State by Mandya West Police Mandya

Sanjay Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka