Allowed

Shri Amar S/O Kisan Alias Kisanrao Yallurkar v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/101851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An advocate accused of unlawful assembly and promoting enmity for chanting 'Jai Maharashtra' slogans on a bus sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the allegations lacked ingredients of the offences and quashed the FIR, charge sheet and pending trial proceedings against him.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.244/2018 (Crime No.191/2017) before II JMFC Belagavi quashed against petitioner-accused No.3.

Shri Amar S/O Kisan Alias Kisanrao Yallurkar Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101851 OF 2024 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. AMAR S/O. KISAN @ KISANRAO YALLURKAR, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTITIONER, R/O CHAVAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-01.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MARKET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.

¶15

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE C.C.NO. 244/2018 (MARKET POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 191/2017) WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE II J.M.F.C. COURT BELAGAVI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143, 147, 153,(A) R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Head learned counsel for the petitioner and high Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶22

This petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.244/2018 on the file of II JMFC Court, Belagavi for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 153A read with Section 149 of IPC, insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned.

¶23

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as

¶24

under:

¶25

On 02.06.2017 when the first informant was on patrolling duty at about 10.00 p.m., near Central Bus-Stand, Belagavi, one Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus was arrived and the inmates/passengers were doing pooja and raising slogan stating that “Pravasancha sevasati Maharashtra parivahan, Jai Maharashtra” . Hence, he went to spot and saw the vehicle bearing No.MH-20/BL-3958. The passengers were creating disturbance between “Kannada”

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶27

and “Marathi” people. The driver and conductor of the bus were also raising slogan as “jai Maharashtra”. Hence, the first informant registered the case in Crime No.191/2017 for the offences under Section 143, 147 and 153A read with Section 149 of IPC, this lead to registration of FIR and investigation.

¶28

The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the Trial Court after taking cognizance issued process against the accused persons. Having exception to the same, accused No.3, the practicing advocate filed this petition contending that, the Investigating Officer has registered a false case against him and others and they have falsely implicated in the crime. Further no specific words were spoken or written against the State of Karnataka more particularly against Kannada people. Further the ingredients of section 153A of IPC is not at all attracted in this case. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings by allowing this petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶31

contended that there is prima facie material against the petitioner and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶32

Perused the materials available on record. As per the complaint, on 02.06.2017 the driver, conductor and other passengers were raising slogan “pravasancha sevasati Maharashtra parivahan, Jai Maharashtra”. Hence, case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 155A of IPC. Thus, it is just and necessary to analyze these Sections.

¶33

143. Punishment

¶34

Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

¶35

147. Punishment for rioting

¶36

Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶39

153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—

¶40

(1) Whoever—

¶41

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, or grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

¶42

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, (or)

¶43

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶45

reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

¶46

Offence committed in place of worship, etc:

¶47

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in subsection (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶48

It show s that, the petitioner and others have not

¶49

formed any unlawful assembly. There was no force or violence used by the petitioner and others. Further they were not promoting any enmity between Kannada and Marathi people on the ground of Language, Karnataka and Maharashtra State and did acts which pre-judicial to maintenance of harmony.

¶50

Insofar as allegations under Section 153A of IPC

¶51

is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶53

Prasad Semwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others¹ at

¶54

paragraph Nos.29, 30 and 33 held as follows.

¶55

29. In the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2007) 5 SCC 1, this Court held that for applying Section 153A IPC, the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential, whereas in the present case, no such groups or communities were referred to in the news article.

¶56

30. The other substantive offence which has been applied by the investigating agency is Section 504 IPC. The said offence can be invoked when the insult of a person provokes him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no such allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the complainant was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence as well. Since we have found that the foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under Sections 153A and 504 IPC are not available from the admitted allegations of

¶57

1 2024 LiveLaw SC 251

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶59

prosecution, the allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections 34 and 120B IPC would also be non est.

¶60

31. XXXXX

¶61

32. XXXXX

¶62

33. Tested on the touchstone of the above principles, we are of the firm view that allowing continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR bearing No. 31 of 2020 registered at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal against the appellant is nothing but gross abuse of process of law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence. Hence, the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant are hereby quashed and set asdie.

¶63

In view of the facts and circumstances and ratio

¶64

laid down in the decision cited supra, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence under Section 153A. The foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offence under Section 153A of IPC is not available from the contents of complaint and investigation report particularly against this petitioner.

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶66

Further, the petitioner is practicing advocate in Belagavi District Court. If the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, it do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner-accused No.3.

¶67

Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C., except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, it is just and necessary to quash FIR and Charge sheet.

¶68

From the perusal of the material available on record, it do not constitute a cognizable offence in this matter, particularly against the petitioner-accused No.3 and the conviction against the present petitioner is so bleak.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9285 CRL.P No. 101851 of 2024

¶71

Hence, definitely there will be further prosecution of petitioner is abuse of process of law. Hence, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The criminal petition filed by the petitoneraccused No.3 is allowed.

¶74

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.244/2018 (Crime No.191/2017 of Market Police Station) on the file of II J.M.F.C. Court, Belagavi initiated against the petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, are hereby quashed .

¶75

In view of disposal of the petition pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, accordingly, the same are disposed off.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

EM/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Shri Amar S/O Kisan Alias Kisanrao Yallurkar v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Amar S/O Kisan Alias Kisanrao Yallurkar v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri Manoj Pai S/O. Sri. B. H. Gurudatt Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Rakesh Shyamarao Bhajanti Vs State of Karnataka

Shrikanth S/O. Ranganath Malode Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmikant Shankaregowda Goudar Vs the State of Karnataka Dharwad

Gode Gadlingappa Alias Kuntu Gadeppa S/O Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka

Mariya S/O Antoni Asangi Vs the State of Karnataka