Petitioner challenged the District Judge's order quashing police protection order as being a flawed Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. High Court held the District Judge was justified in remanding the matter for enquiry and dismissed the criminal petition.
Criminal petition dismissed; matter remanded to Tahsildar for enquiry; parties to appear on 10.07.2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:19792 CRL.P No. 667 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 667 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. LATE MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O OLD BULLAPURA, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:19792 CRL.P No. 667 of 2018
HAVING SHOP IN SY.NO.88/P2, OLD BULLABURA, NEAR BY-PASS ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O DOOR NO.198/D, HUDCO COLONY, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
NC: 2023:KHC:19792 CRL.P No. 667 of 2018
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R5 AND R6)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.RP.NO.5023/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS CRL.RP.NO.5023/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the Court below in Crl.R.P.5023/2016, wherein the learned District Judge has
set aside the communication issued by respondent No.5/Tahasildar directing the police officers to give police protection to the petitioner herein. The order of the
learned District Judge in remitting the matter to
respondent No.5/Tahasildar is under challenge.
to the communication dated 23.03.2016 issued by respondent No.5/Tahasildar. He would point out that the said communication is virtually an order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. He would further contend that this order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, respondents No.1 to 4's rights are seriously prejudiced. Therefore, supporting the order under challenge, he would contend that the learned District Judge, taking cognizance of all the significant details, was justified in remitting back the matter to respondent No.5/Tahasildar.
request was made to respondent No.5/Tahasildar to issue necessary directions to the police officers to give adequate police protection. This application is entertained by respondent No.5/Tahasildar and direction was issued to the police officers to give protection to the petitioner.
application was submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.5/Tahasildar, respondent No.5/Tahasildar could not have unilaterally decided without seeking explanation from the petitioner herein, as there are serious allegation that there was a threat to his possession.
The essence of drawing up of proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C is based on the satisfaction of the executing Magistrate. The satisfaction must be recorded by him and while doing so, he is under bounden duty to notify the parties who are likely to be affected by the order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Respondent No.5/Tahasildar has not properly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The order also does not indicate that there is likelihood of breach of peace. He has also not
NC: 2023:KHC:19792 CRL.P No. 667 of 2018
recorded his satisfaction while issuing such an order. However, if the entire contents of the communication dated 23.03.2016 are examined and looked into, this Court would not hesitate to hold the order of Tahasildar not fulfill the ingredients mentioned under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2023:KHC:19792 CRL.P No. 667 of 2018
with the order passed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
iii. Since parties are represented by their respective counsel they shall appear before respondent No.5 on 10.07.2023.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned communication dated 23.03.2016 issued by the Tahsildar falls within the nature of an order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Naveen Kumar
Mohammed Rafi
Srinivasa Rao
Balakrishna Rao
Narayana Rao
The Tahsildar, Bhadravathi Taluk
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
