Allowed

Abdul Jameer v. State by Kote Police

Karnataka HC29 May 2023CRL.P/6760/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC quashing FIR and charge sheet. Court held that since the State Government failed to issue notification under Section 1(2)(ii) of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 bringing the locality under the Act, jurisdiction to investigate is absent and proceedings are vitiated.

What did the court decide?

FIR and charge sheet in C.C.No.515/2019 pending on files of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shimoga District were quashed.

Abdul Jameer Vs State by Kote Police — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6760 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ABDUL JAMEER S/O SIBGATH ULLA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, TIPPU NAGARA, 7TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 025 KARNATAKA

¶8

MOHAMMED ARIF S/O ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, KHAJI NAGARA - 577 202 MANJUNATHA BADAVANE SHIVAMOGGA.

¶9

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

¶10

ABDUL SATTAR S/O ABDUL SALAM AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE JATPAT NAGARA SULEBYLU SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY KOTE POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

C K KARIBASAVA NAIKA

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶18

S/O KALANAYAK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FLYING SQUAD HEAD OF 6TH GROUP SHIVAMOGGA LOKSABHA REGION AND ASSISTANT HORTICULTURE OFFICER HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GANDHI PARK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 PH 9972529813

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR AT ANNEXURE-A AND CHARGE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-D i.e CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.515/2019 IN CR.NO.40/2019 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND THESE PETITIONERS ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA OPEN PLACES DISFIGUREMENT (PREVENTION) ACT.

¶22

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.40/2019 registered for offences punishable under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act').

¶25

3 - CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners

¶27

submits that the incident has happened in the Shimoga City, Shimoga District which is not the one i.e., notified under Section 3 of the Act for it to become an offence.

¶28

The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that of this Court which have held that no notification is issued under the Act bringing the said place under the Act, such offence cannot be laid. The Coordinate Bench in Crl.P. No.508/2017 and connected cases has held as follows –

¶29

" 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a legal bar to initiate the proceedings and to proceed with the matter as per Section 1(2)(ii) of the Act. The Investigating Officer has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter without there being a notified area by the State.

¶30

It is the allegation in the first information report in all the cases that on 24.12.2015 in lieu of Hanuma Jayanthi, the petitioner-accused person along with other accused persons, without taking

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶33

permission have fixed the banners buntings, flexes in Hunsur city in Ward Nos. 13,15,18 and 19. On the basis of such allegation, the police have registered a case under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act.

¶34

On perusal of the provision under the said Act, Section (1) reads as follows:-

¶35

(1) This Act may be called the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981. (2) It shall-

¶36

(i) be deemed to have come into force in the cities of Bangalore, Mysore, Hubli-Dharwar, Mangalore and Belgaum constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or under any other law, on the fifth day of May 1981 and

¶37

ii) come into force in the municipalities, notified areas, sanitary boards, constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or under any other law, or in any other local area, on such date, as the State Government may my notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed in respect of different areas.

¶38

Section (1)(2)(i) of the Act states that that it is deemed to have come into force in the cities of Bangalore, Mysore, Hubli-Dharwar, Mangalore and

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶41

Belgaum constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or under any other law, on the fifth day of May 1981. Section (1)(2)(ii) states that it shall come into force in the municipalities, notified areas, sanitary boards, constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or under any other law, cr in any other local area, on such date, as the State Government may by notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed in respect of different areas.

¶42

Admittedly as per the submission of the learned HCGP that the State Government has not issued any notification notifying the Hunsur Municipality or the particular area in which the alleged offence has been committed in order to attract the provisions of the said Act.

¶43

Time was granted to the learned HCGP to ascertain whether any such notification has been issued under the said Act. However, today the learned HCGP submits that as contemplated under Section (2) (ii) of the Act, no notification has been issued under the said Act.

¶44

Under the above said circumstance, registration of the case and continuation of the

¶45

6 - CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶46

investigation is vitiated. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶47

Accordingly, the following order is passed.

¶48

i) All the petitions are hereby allowed.

¶49

ii) All further proceedings in C.C.No.501 of 2016 (arising out of Crime No.289/2015) on the file of Principal Senior Ciril Judge and JMFC Hunsur, Mysore District and all further investigation and proceedings in Crime No.290, 291, 292, 293 of 2015 on the file of Respondent - Hunsur Police insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned are hereby quashed."

¶50

4. Following the said judgment, this Court in Crl.P.

¶51

No.6737/2022 has held as follows –

¶52

"3. The issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5309/2022 , disposed of on 14.06.2022, wherein this Court has held as follows:

¶53

“ ORDER

¶54

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur,

¶55

¶56

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶57

in C.C.No.121/2020 and the charge sheet dated 14.12.2019 in crime No.207/2019.

¶58

2. Both learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State in unison would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.508/2017 and connected matters D.D.on 10.01.2018.

¶59

3. The order dated 10.01.2018, passed Crl.P.No.508/2017 and connected matters, read as follows:

¶60

"3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a legal bar to initiate the proceedings and to proceed with the matter as per Section 1(2)(ii) of the Act. The Investigating Officer has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter without there being a notified area by the State.

¶61

4. It is the allegation in the first information report in all the cases that on 24.12.2015 in lieu of Hanuma Jayanthi,the petitioner-accused person along with other accused persons, without taking permission have fixed the banners, buntings, flexes in

¶62

¶63

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶64

Hunsur city in Ward Nos.13,15,18 and 19. On the basis of such allegation, the police have registered a case under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act.

¶65

5. On perusal of the provision under the said Act,Section (1) reads as follows :-

¶66

(1) This Act may be called the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.

¶67

(2) It shall –

¶68

(i) be deemed to have come into force in the cities of Bangalore, Mysore, HubliDharwar, Mangalore in and Belgaum constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or under any other law, on the fifth day of May 1981 and

¶69

ii) come into force in the municipalities, notified areas, sanitary boards, constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or under any other law, or in any other local area, on such date, as the State Government may my notification, appoint

¶70

¶71

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶72

and different dates may be appointed in respect of different areas.

¶73

6. Section (1)(2)(i) of the Act states that that it is deemed to have come into force in the cities of Bangalore, Mysore, Hubli-Dharwar, Mangalore and Belgaum constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or under any other law, on the fifth day of May 1981. Section (1)(2)(ii) states that it shall come into force in the municipalities, notified areas, sanitary boards, constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or under any other law, or in any other local area, on such date, as the State Government may by notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed in respect of different areas.

¶74

7. Admittedly as per the submission of the learned HCGP that the State Government has not issued any notification notifying the Hunsur Municipality or the particular area in which the alleged offence has been committed in order to attract the provisions of the said Act.

¶75

8. Time was granted to the learned HCGP to ascertain whether any such notification has been issued under the said Act. However, today the learned HCGP submits that as contemplated under

¶76

10 -

¶77

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶78

Section (2) (ii) of the Act, no notification has been issued under the said Act.

¶79

9. Under the above said circumstance, registration of the case and continuation of the investigation is vitiated. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶80

10. Accordingly, the following order is passed.

¶81

i) All the petitions are hereby allowed.

¶82

ii) All further proceedings in C.C.No.501 of 2016 (arising out of Crime No.289/2015) on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hunsur, Mysore District and all further investigation and proceedings in Crime No.290, 291, 292, 293 of 2015 on the file of Respondent – Hunsur Police insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned are hereby quashed.”

¶83

In the light of the aforesaid order and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings initiated against the petitioner."

¶84

11 -

¶85

CRL.P No. 6760 of 2020

¶86

The learned High Court Government Pleader would

¶87

though seek to refute the submissions admits the position of law as is laid down in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶88

The FIR and charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.NO.515/2019 pending on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge And CJM, Shimoga District stands quashed.

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Abdul Jameer v. State by Kote Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jameer v. State by Kote Police

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

M/S Splendid Properties Vs State of Karnataka

Vishwanath H M (Ex-M.L.a) Vs State of Karnataka

K.R.Divya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Udaya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latha C R Vs State of Karnataka

Mahendra R Vs State of Karnataka