Allowed

Smt Shobha Karandlaje v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024CRL.P/2758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.45/2024. The quashing was granted relying on the High Court of Madras order quashing a similar FIR against the petitioner, based on her apology and the lack of intent to create enmity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No.45/2024 quashed qua the petitioner.

Smt Shobha Karandlaje Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:38616 CRL.P No. 2758 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2758 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHOBHA KARANDLAJE, D/O MONAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, R/AT NO. 16, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, NEW BEL ROAD, CHIKKAMARENHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY PS COTTON PET POLICE STATION,

¶15

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

SHIVARAJU M.N, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, OCC: ENGINEER, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MCC-FLYING SQUAD TEAM HEAD, 168-CHAMARAJPET-AC, 25-BENGALURU CENTRAL LOK SABHA, 560 018.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38616 CRL.P No. 2758 of 2024

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.45/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 COTTENPET POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CMM NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU THE OFFENCE P/U/S 123(3), 123(3A) AND 125 OF RP ACT PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.45/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 123(3), 123(3A) and 125 of Representation of People Act.

¶26

Heard Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl.SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶27

The petitioner is said to have made certain statements which is said to have lead or has the potential to

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38616 CRL.P No. 2758 of 2024

¶29

lead enmity or hatredness between people of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The statement was concerning the bomb blast that happened in Rameshwaram Café. Two crimes are registered in different jurisdiction; one in the jurisdiction of the city in Crime No.45/2024 and within the jurisdiction of Madurai City in crime No.24/2024. The High Court of Madras by its order dated 05.09.2024, has quashed the crime by rendering the following order:

¶30

"Pursuant to the complaint given by one Thiagarajan, Madurai City Police, CCB-III, registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2024 dated 20.03.2024 against the petitioner herein for the alleged offences under Sections 153, 153(A), 505(i)(b), 505(ii) of IPC.

¶31

2. The complaint centers around certain statement made by the petitioner herein in the press conference implicating persons from Tamil Nadu for the bomb blast occurred in a hotel at Bangalore. Alleging that the complaint is not sustainable, the petitioner has preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the complaint stating that her statement was not made with any intention to create enmity or disrupt. Soon after the said alleged offensive statement, she has given clarification retracting her remarks through tweet expressing her regret and she pray for forgiveness.

¶32

3. When the petition for quash the FIR came up for consideration, the petitioner has come forward to file an affidavit to reiterate her regret.

¶33

4. The learned Advocate General, on instructions from the Government, reports that the State after considering the profound apology made by the petitioner herein through affidavit, has taken policy decision not to pursue the matter further. The petitioner herein in her affidavit had stated as below:-

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:38616 CRL.P No. 2758 of 2024

¶36

"3. I state that the alleged comment made by me about the people of Tamil Nadu while addressing the media about the Rameshwaram cafe bomb blast case at Bengaluru, was made without any intention to hurt the sentiments and feelings of the people of Tamil Nadu. Having understood that the comments made by me has hurt the sentiments and feelings of some people of Tamil Nadu, I have already retracted my previous comments and tendered my profound apologies through social media platforms.

¶37

4. I state that I have the highest respect and regard to the history, rich culture, tradition to the people of Tamil Nadu and I had or have no intention whatsoever to hurt the sentiments of people of Tamil Nadu by any conduct of mine. Hence, I hereby once again tender my apology to the people of Tamil Nadu for having caused any hurt from my comments. The same may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice.

¶38

5. This has been accepted by the Government on behalf of the people of Tamil Nadu and had expressed the decision not to pursue the matter further.

¶39

6. In the light of the above fact, the complaint in Crime No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai stands quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

¶40

4. The alleged statements made by the petitioner

¶41

resulted in two crimes in two jurisdiction and one of the crime

¶42

being set aside as afore-quoted, would undoubtedly enure to the petitioner in the case at hand. Since I am in respectful agreement with what the High Court of Madras in the aforesaid

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:38616 CRL.P No. 2758 of 2024

¶45

petition, as quoted hereinabove, and for very reasons rendered by the High Court of Madras, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the impugned proceedings even.

¶46

5. In respectful agreement with what the High Court of

¶47

Madras has held supra , I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) Proceedings pending in Crime No.45/2024 stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶51

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

Smt Shobha Karandlaje v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shobha Karandlaje 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mohamed Ashraf Arakkal Koottinatakayil Vs State by Malleshwaram P S

Sri. Sibghathulla Bokhari Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lalithamma G Bhatt Vs State of Karnataka

Thomas a Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Rajesh Mohan Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Irshad Ali Vs State by Mysuru Women P S