Allowed

Mahammad Jaufar v. State by

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023CRL.P/658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against petitioners accused under IPC Sections 504, 323, 353, etc. The court held that specific overt acts were missing to constitute the offence of using criminal force to deter a public servant, and continuing proceedings on general allegations would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.359/2021 against accused Nos.6 and 7 quashed.

Mahammad Jaufar Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39960 CRL.P No. 658 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 658 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHAMMAD JAUFAR, S/O H.P.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT 2-33, HOSAMATA HOUSE, BALYA VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.

¶9

HAMEED H.A., S/O H.P.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT 2-33, HOSAMATA HOUSE, BALYA VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY KADABA POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING – 01.

¶15

WILFRED LAURENCE RODRIGUS, PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUTRUPPADI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KADABA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 574 221. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.VENKATSATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39960 CRL.P No. 658 of 2022

¶18

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE - D IN C.C.NO.34/2021 BY KADABA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PUTTUR D.K FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.504, 323, 353, 341, 506, 149 OF IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7 are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 353, 341, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Panchayath Development Officer, and on 08.01.2022, when she along with her staff went to measure the road for the purpose of giving connectivity road, at that time, the accused herein abused the defacto complainant and C.Ws.1 to 3 with unparliamentary words and when the defacto complainant in fear went and sat in the car, at that time, accused No.1 stopped C.W.1 from proceeding further and pulled her hand and assaulted her. Further the accused threatened her with dire consequences if she proceeds further with the work on the road in question.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially in the FIR, there is no allegation as against the petitioners herein and in the further statement, the defacto complainant has stated that the petitioners herein also deterred

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39960 CRL.P No. 658 of 2022

¶25

her from discharging her duties and also tried to assault her. Therefore, in the absence of any specific overt acts as against the petitioners as to how and in what manner they threatened or deterred the defacto complainant from discharging her duties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits in the further statement, the defacto complainant has specifically stated that she was not knowing the names of the petitioners herein and therefore, at the time of lodging the FIR, the petitioners were not implicated. He further submits that C.W.5 in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C has stated that the petitioners along with the other accused assaulted and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Therefore, the charge sheet material discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners and the veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be gone into at this stage.

¶27

Learned HCGP would reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

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

¶29

Initially in the FIR, the defacto complainant has not stated the involvement of the petitioners herein. In the further statement recorded on 06.01.2021, the defacto complainant

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39960 CRL.P No. 658 of 2022

¶32

has stated that since the names of petitioners herein was not known, their involvement in the said crime was not stated in the FIR.

¶33

A perusal of the further statement of the defacto complainant and other charge sheet witnesses discloses that except omnibus and general allegations that the petitioners herein restrained the public servant from discharging her duties and threatened them with dire consequences, there is no specific overt acts as to how and in what manner the petitioners deterred the defacto complainant from discharging their duties.

¶34

To constitute an offence under Section 353 of IPC, a person must have either assaulted or used criminal force deterring the public servant from discharging the duties. In the instant case, there is no allegation, much less any material, that the petitioners either assaulted or used criminal force in deterring the defacto complainant and her staff from discharging duties. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners only on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, in the absence of any specific allegation to constitute commission of the offences alleged against them, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:39960 CRL.P No. 658 of 2022

¶38

¶39

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.359/2021 on the file Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., insofar it relates to accused Nos.6 and 7 stands quashed.

¶40

iii. The learned Magistrate to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and the observations made if any, is only for the purpose of present petition.

¶41

All contentions are kept open.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Mahammad Jaufar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahammad Jaufar v. State by

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

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Simi Kalakamba Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Elizabeth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. Vs State by Peenya Police Station