Allowed

Sri G Devarajegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024CRL.P/3158/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an FIR registered against the petitioner for alleged obstruction under Section 353 of the IPC. The Court held that the complaint lacked ingredients of the offence as no duty was actually impeded, citing Supreme Court precedents on abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.32/2024 registered by Hassan City Police Station, pending in the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, qua the petitioner, stands quashed.

Sri G Devarajegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3158 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI G DEVARAJEGOWDA SON OF LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KAMASAMUDRA VILLAGE MAVINAKERE POST, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573211

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M., SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. SHASHIDHAR BELAGUMBA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THROUGH HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION, HASSAN

¶15

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01

¶17

SMT SATHYABHAMA C DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP.)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.32/2024 REGISTERED BY THE HASSAN CITY POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 353 OF IPC AND PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.32/2024 for offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC, before the Hassan City Police Station, Hassan.

¶27

Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Aruna Shyam M., for the learned counsel

¶28

Sri.Shashidhar Belagumba, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The second respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District is the complainant. The gist of the complaint is that a complaint comes to be registered by the petitioner alleging that one J Deepak Gowda and his mother were granted eight CL-7 Excise licenses to run a Bar and Restaurant or a Bar

¶30

independently of the restaurant, as the case would be. After the registration of the complaint, the petitioner appears to have

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶32

come to the office of the complainant venting out several grievances. One of the grievance was with regard to Mr.J.Deepak Gowda having eight CL-7 licenses and several illegalities on the said license. The petitioner had complained this to the Commissioner of Excise on 27.09.2023. No action

¶33

was taken. The petitioner again registered a complaint now before the present complainant on 18.03.2024 inter alia with regard to gross violation of Karnataka Excise Act and also brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that those licenses ought to have been withdrawn. Between the dates i.e., 27.09.2023 to 18.03.2024, happens the subject incident. It is the case of the complainant that on 14.03.2024 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner has without any prior permission in the compound of the Deputy Commissioner held press conference and has also hurled certain abuses upon the complainant. The complainant registers a crime on 19.03.2024 that the act of the petitioner has caused a dent to her respect.

¶34

This becomes a crime in Crime No.32/2024 for offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. It is the registration of the crime that has driven the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶37

The learned Senior counsel would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had visited the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, when he was coming out of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the press was waiting for a byte from him. Therefore, he stood and gave a minute byte to the press with regard to what had transpired in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that nowhere in the complaint it is alleged by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner had stopped the Deputy Commissioner from functioning, which would become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings for it being an abuse of process of law.

¶38

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint though does not narrate it happened in the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, there are statements recorded and Mahazar drawn later that everything has happened in the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the offence is made out and the investigation should be permitted to be continued.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶41

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶42

contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶43

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

¶44

issue at present is with regard to the offence under Section 353 of the IPC and the offence has sprung from the complaint so registered by the Deputy Commissioner. The complaint registered by the Deputy Commissioner reads as follows:

¶45

¸AS À å: JA.J.f É /551/2023-24 ¢£ÁAP:19/03/2024 À

¶46

��ೕ��ೕ�ಕರು , �ಾಸನನಗರ�ಾ�ೆ , �ಾಸನ . �ಾನ��ೆ ,

¶47

�ಷಯ : � . �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ೌಡ , ವ ೕಲರು �ೋ#ೆನರ$ೕಪ&ರರವರ �ರುದ( )ಾನೂನು�ೕತ� ಕ+ಮಜರು.ಸುವಕು�ತು .

¶48

ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ : 1. 3ೕ�ಾ �ಜಯ 4�ಟ6 ಯೂಟು�7 8ಾ9ೆ6 ನ�1 " �0ಾ1:)ಾ��ೆ ಆ�ೆ ಸ<ಾಲು �ಾ ದ ವ ೕಲ �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ೌಡ _"_ =ೕ>?)ೆ ಅ4ಯ�1 ಪ+Aಾರ<ಾ.ರುವ�4Bೕ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15/03/2024

¶49

2. ಬಹುಜನರಧG�HನಪI+)ೆಯಪ&ಟಸಂKೆ� :02 ರ�1ಪ+ಕಟ<ಾ.ರುವ ¢£ÁAP : 16/03/2024 À

¶50

3. ಈಕMೇ�ಯಸಮಪತ+ ಸಂKೆ� H9ಾಂಕ :09/02/2024

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶53

4. ಈಕMೇ�ಯIಳOವP)ೆ ಪತ+ H9ಾಂಕ :16/03/2024

¶54

5. � . �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ೌಡ�ಾಸನರವರಪ+ತು�ತQರH9ಾಂಕ : 18/03/2024.

¶55

*****

¶56

RೕಲSಂಡ�ಷಯ)ೆS ಸಂಬಂ:$ದಂTೆ ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖದಪತ+ದನUಯ� . �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ೌಡ ವ ೕಲರು �ೊ#ೆನರ$ೕಪ&ರ ರವರು H9ಾಂಕ :14/03/2024 ರ ಗುರು<ಾರ ಸಂ�ೆ :7:00_ ಗಂVೆ ಸಮಯದ�1 Wಾವ&�ೇ ಅನುಮIಪXೆಯ�ೆ �0ಾ1:)ಾ�ಗಳಕ8ೇ�ಯಅವರಣದ�1ಪI+)ಾ Zೂೕ>[ �ೕ4ರುTಾQ�ೆ ಮತುQ ನನ�ೆ �ಂ:$ ಸ)ಾ?ರದ �ಾಗೂ Aಾವ?ಜ�ಕರ ಕತ?ವ�)ೆS ಅಡಚ�ೆ ಉಂಟು�ಾ4ರುTಾQ�ೆ . ಮತುQ ಕ#ೆದ ಆರು Iಂಗಳ ]ಂ�ೆ )ಾನೂನು ^ಾ]ರ<ಾ. ನXೆಯುIQರುವ ಚನ�ಾಯಪಟಣ Tಾಲೂ1 ನ ಆ�ಾ�� ^ಾa ಅಂb �ೆAೋ�ೆಂc ಗಳ �ರುದ( ಅಬ)ಾ� ಇ0ಾKೆ ಆಯುಕQರು ತ�Kೆ ನXೆ$ �ಯಮ ಉಲಂe$ರುವ&ದು ದೃಢಪhದುi ಕ+ಮ )ೈ�ೊಳOkವಂTೆ �0ಾ1:)ಾ�ಗP�ೆ ವರH �ಾಡ0ಾ.ರುತQ�ೆಂದು _._ ಆದ�ೆ �0ಾ1:)ಾ�ಗ#ಾದ ಸತ�lಾಮರವರು ಆ�ಾ�� ^ಾa ಅಂb �ೆAೋ�ೆಂcಗಳ �ರುದ( ಕ+ಮ )ೈ�ೊಳOkವ ಬದ0ಾ. ಕಡತಗಳನು_ ತಮm ಬPnೕ ಇಟು`)ೊಂಡು ಅವ�ವ�ಾರ �ಾಡುIQರುವವರ ಪರ<ಾ. )ೆಲಸ �ಾಡುIQ�ಾi�ೆ ಎಂದು ಆ�ೋp$ H9ಾಂಕ _: 15/03/2024_ ರ ಸುHiZೂೕ>[ಯ�1 IP$ರುTಾQ�ೆ ಸದ� �ಷಯವ& H9ಾಂಕ :16/03/2024 ರಂದುಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ (2) ರHನಪI+)ೆಯ�1ಪ+ಕಟ<ಾ.ರುತQ�ೆ .

¶57

ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ (4) ರ�1 ಸದ� �ಷಯದ ಬ�ೆq ಆ�ೋp$ರುವ ಕು�ತು �ಮm ಬP ಇರುವ Aಾrಾsಾರದ ಪtರಕ �ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು_ ಈ ಕMೇ��ೆ 07 Hನಗ#ೆuಳ�ೆ �ೕಡಲು ಸೂv$ ತpwದ�1 �ೕವ& �ಾ4ರುವ ಸುಳOk ಆ�ೋಪದ �ರುದ( ಸೂಕQ )ಾನೂನು ಕ+ಮ ಜರು.ಸ0ಾಗುವ&ದು ಎಂದು � . �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ೌಡ ºÉÆ¼É£ÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ ರವ��ೆ IಳOವP)ೆ ಪತ+ �ಾ��ಾಡ0ಾ.ರುತQ�ೆ .

¶58

H9ಾಂಕ :18/03/2024 ರಂದು =+ೕ � . �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ಾಡ��ೆ IಳOವP)ೆ ಪತ+ �ಾ�Wಾ.ದುi ಸದ� Hನದಂ�ೇ ಈ ಕMೇ��ೆ ಪ+ತು�ತQರ ಸ�1$ರುTಾQ�ೆ . ಸದ� ಪ+ತು�ತQರದ�1 " ಅ:)ಾರ ದುರುಪBೕಗ �ಾಗೂ ದುನ?ಡTೆxಂ�ೆ ನXೆದು)ೊಂ4ರುವ ಬ�ೆq ಪI+)ಾ Zೂೕ>[ಯ�1 9ಾಗ�ೕಕ��ೆ IPಸ0ಾ.�ೆ . ಆದ�ೆ �ೕವ& ನನ�ೆ H9ಾಂಕ :16/03/2024 ರಂದು ನನ_ನು_ ^ೆದ�ಸಲು IಳOವP)ೆ ಪತ+ವನು_ �ೕ4ರುIQೕರ ಈ �ೕIಯ^ೆದ�)ೆಗP�ೆ )ಾನೂನು �ೕIಯ�1ಉತQರ)ೊಡುTೆQೕ9ೆ . Tಾವ& ಈಕೂಡ0ೇ 9ೈIಕ �ೊ�ೆ �ೊತುQ ತಮm ಹು�ೆixಂದ �ಗ?y$ದ�ೆ �ೕವ& ಈ ಸ�ಾಜವನು_ �ಾಗೂ 9ಾಗ�ೕಕರನು_ �ೌರ�$ದಂTಾಗುತQ�ೆ . Tಾವ& ಇ�ೇ �ೕIಯ�1ದುನ?ಡTೆxಂದವI?$ದ�ೆ ತಮmನು_ ಕೂಡ0ೇ ಕತ?ವ�0ೋಪ , ಅ:)ಾರ ದುರಪBೕಗ �ಾಗೂ ದುನ?ಡTೆಯ ಆsಾರ Rೕ0ೆ �ಮmನು_ Aೇ<ೆxಂದ ವ�ಾ�ೊPಸಲು )ಾನೂನು �ೋ�ಾಟ ನXೆಸ0ಾಗುವ&ದು "

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶61

ಎಂದು ಪ+ತು�ತQರ ಸ�1$ರುTಾQ�ೆ . ಆದ�ೆ ನನ_ �ರುದ( �ಾಸನ �0ೆ1ಯ�1 ಅತ�ಂತ ಕಡು ಭ+ಷ` �0ಾ1:)ಾ�Wಾ.ದi�ೆಂದು �ಾ4ರುವ ಆ�ೋಪಗP�ೆ ಸಂಬಂ:$ದ Wಾವ&�ೇ Aಾrಾ�ಾರದಪtರಕ�ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು_ ಪತ+ದ�ೊTೆ ಸ�1$ರುವ&Hಲ1 .

¶62

ಚನ_�ಾಯಪಟಣ Tಾಲೂ1 ನ ಆ�ಾ�� ^ಾa ಅಂb �ೆAೋ�ೆಂcಗಳ �ರುದ( ಅಬ)ಾ� ಇ0ಾKೆ ಆಯುಕQರು ತ�Kೆ ನXೆ$ �ಯಮ ಉಲಂe$ರುವ ^ಾa ಅಂb �ೆAೋ�ೆಂcಗಳ �ರುದ( ಕ+ಮ)ೆS ಬ�ೆHರುವ ಪತ+ದ ಬ�ೆq ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಮೂಲ ಕಡತ�ೊಂH�ೆ ಮಂ4$ ಕ+ಮವ]ಸಲು ಉಪ ಆಯುಕQರು ಅಬ)ಾ� ಇ0ಾKೆ �ಾಸನ ರವ��ೆ H9ಾಂಕ :09/02/2024 ರಂದು ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ (3) ರ�1 ಪತ+ ಬ�ೆಯ0ಾ.ದುi ಸದ� �8ಾರ<ಾ. ಅಬ)ಾ� ಇ0ಾKೆxಂದ )ೈ�ೊಂಡ ಕ+ಮದ ವರHಯನು_ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಇ0ಾKೆxಂದ ಪXೆಯಬಹು�ಾ.ರುತQ�ೆ ಎಂದು IP$ದರೂ ಸಹ ಸದ�ಯವರು H9ಾಂಕ** **_:14/03/2024_ ರಗುರು<ಾರಸಂ�ೆ** **_:7:00_ ಗಂVೆ ಸಮಯದ�1ಅನಗತ�<ಾ.ನನ�ೆ �ಂ:$** **_,_ )ೈ ಸ9ೆ_ಯನು_ �ಾ4 ^ೆದ�$ ಎತQಂಗ4 �ಾ4$ರುTೆQೕ9ೆ ಎಂದು �ೇP ಸ)ಾ?ರದ ಮತುQ Aಾವ?ಜ�ಕರ ಕತ?ವ�)ೆS ಅಡಚ�ೆ ಉಂಟು�ಾ4** **_,_ ��ಧ ಇ0ಾKೆಯ ಅ:)ಾ�ಗಳO ಇ0ಾKಾ )ೆಲಸ)ಾS. ಬಂHದುi ಆ )ೆಲಸವನು_ �ವ?]ಸಲು Aಾಧ�<ಾಗದಂTೆ ಕತ?ವ�)ೆS ಅ4{ಪ4$ರುTಾQ�ೆ** **_._ �0ಾ1:)ಾ� ಮತುQ �0ಾ1ದಂXಾ:)ಾ�Wಾದ ನನ_ �ರುದ( Wಾವ&�ೇ ಪtರಕ �ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು_ �ೊಂHರ�ೆ ಸುHi�ೋ>[ ನXೆ$ರುTಾQ�ೆ** **_._ ಇದi�ಂದ ನನ�ೆ ಸ)ಾ?ರದ �ಾಗೂ Aಾವ?ಜ�ಕರ ಕತ?ವ�)ೆS ]ನ_XೆಉಂVಾ.ದುi �0ೆ1ಯAಾವ?ಜ�ಕರುಮತುQಸ)ಾ?ರದಮಟದ�1ನನ_ Rೕ0ೆ ಇh`ದ�ೌರವ)ೆS ದ)ೆS ಉಂVಾ.ರುತQ�ೆ .

¶63

ಆದi�ಂದ �0ೆ1ಯ�1 ಮTೊQRm ಇಂತಹ ಪ+ಕರಣಗಳO ಮರುಕPಸದಂTೆ � . �ೇವ�ಾ�ೇ�ೌಡ , ವ ೕಲರು , )ಾಮಸಮುದ+ �ಾ+ಮ , ಹ#ೇ)ೋVೆ �ೋಬP , �ೊ#ೆನರ$ೕಪ&ರ Tಾಲೂ1ಕುರವರ �ರುದ( ಐ . p . $ .353 ಮತುQ ಇತರ ಅನUಯ<ಾUÀÄªÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.”

¶64

It is the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner so registered on 19.03.2024 that on 14.03.2024 at about 7.00 p.m., without any permission from the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has conducted a press conference in the premises of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner further alleges that the petitioner had brought

¶65

down her respect by speaking loud in front of the other Officers. All this according to the complainant has resulted in

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶68

stopping of her performance of public duties and therefore, it has become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC.

¶69

The justification of the learned Senior counsel is

¶70

that when the petitioner walked out of the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner when he had agitated with regard to eight CL-7 licenses being given to someone or any other issue, the people from the press had taken a byte from him with regard to what has happened inside. The justification stands to reason for the reason that there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner has entered the chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, created a problem or stopped the Deputy Commissioner from performing her functions. If that is not the complaint, the foundation becomes shaky. The State wants to build a superstructure on the shaky foundation by recording statements after the event had happened. The event admittedly had happened on 14.03.2024 and the complaint itself comes to be registered on 19.03.2024. The complainant is the Deputy Commissioner. If what is narrated in the complaint, it would not take five full days for the complainant to wake up and register the complaint. If the Deputy

¶71

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶72

Commissioner's functioning has been impeded, she ought to have without any loss of time registered the complaint, not thinking for five days that what kind of complaint should be registered. Therefore between 14.03.2024 and 19.03.2024 it is obvious that the second respondent was collecting evidence to register the crime. Thus, the very incident is shrouded with inherent improbability that would necessarily lead to obliteration of the crime, as the ingredients that are necessary for an offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC are completely lacking in the case at hand. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows:

¶73

" 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—

¶74

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

¶75

Section 353 of the IPC directs whoever assaults or uses criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of their duty they would become open to prosecution. It uses the

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶77

10 -

¶78

words assault, criminal force. The significance and interpretation of these words need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

¶79

A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case

¶80

of Mahendra Kumar Sonker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1924 , has held as follows:

¶81

"15. At the outset, we extract hereinbelow Section 353 of the IPC:

¶82

“353.- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶83

A perusal of Section 353 indicates that whoever assaults or uses criminal force (a) to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or (b) with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or (c) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant,

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶86

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

¶87

16. It is important at this stage to notice the definition of criminal force as defined in Section 350 of the IPC.

¶88

“350. Criminal force.- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”

¶89

As would be clear, what is required to establish criminal force is intentional use of force to any person without that person's consent in order to the committing of any offence.

¶90

17. Section 349 of the IPC which defines force is extracted hereinbelow :

¶91

“349. Force.- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶94

causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described.

¶95

First. - By his own bodily power.

¶96

Secondly. - By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.

¶97

Thirdly. - By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.”

¶98

18. Assault under Section 351 of the IPC would mean whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person.

¶99

19. In this background, if we peruse the evidence on record, insofar as the charge under Section 353 of the IPC is concerned, it will transpire that none of the ingredients required for convicting a person under Section 353 of IPC were attracted."

¶100

The Apex Court holds that Section 353 of the IPC requires use of criminal force or even force. Section 349 of the

¶101

IPC and Section 350 of the IPC deal with force and criminal

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶104

force, which the Apex Court considers. The Apex Court holds that the evidence therein did not meet the ingredient of Section 353 of the IPC. If the findings of the Apex Court are paraphrased to the facts obtaining in the case on hand, what would unmistakably emerge is that none of the ingredients that are necessary for a force, criminal force for it to become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC is present even to its semblance, though the case before the Apex Court was after trial, I deem it appropriate to follow the same even to obliterate the FIR on the ground that the complaint does not have the foundational facts for it to become the ingredients of Section 353 of the IPC. It is undoubtedly shrouded with inherent improbability. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL¹ , wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶105

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the

¶106

1 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335

¶107

14 -

¶108

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶109

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶110

(1) Where 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 do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶111

(2) 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 the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶112

(3) 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.

¶113

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶114

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶115

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the

¶116

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶117

Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶118

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶119

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and the judgments of the Apex Court quoted supra, if further investigation is permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice."

¶120

The Apex Court has held that at the stage of crime it can be obliterated, if in the event, if the event is said to be true, even it does not make out an offence.

¶121

In the light of the complaint not making even a semblance of the offence, permitting further investigation against the petitioner would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶122

16 -

¶123

NC: 2024:KHC:36091 CRL.P No. 3158 of 2024

¶124

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶125

ORDER

¶126

i) The petition is allowed; and

¶127

ii) The FIR in Crime No.32/2024 registered by the Hassan City Police Station, Hassan, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court, Hassan District, Hassan, qua the petitioner, stands quashed.

¶128

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶129

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri G Devarajegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Devarajegowda 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 Ashok Abrahim Kuriakose Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Siddhasiri Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb)

Gaurav Dahake Vs the Union of India

Mr v Govinda Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Srinidhi Chinnam Vs K B Yarriswamy

Binish Thomas Vs State of Karnataka