Allowed

Sri. K. J. George v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2024WP/409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MLA/MMLC accused in a private complaint for a Covid-19 SOP protest challenged cognizance taken without application of mind by the Magistrate. Citing Supreme Court precedents requiring judicial scrutiny before issuing summons, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.25317/2022 before the 42nd ACMM quashed qua the petitioners.

Sri. K. J. George Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6642 WP No. 409 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 409 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. K.J.GEORGE

¶7

S/O. K.C.GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, MINISTER OF ENERGY MEMBER OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SARVAGNANAGAR CONSTITUENCY, R/O. NO.632, 7^TH FLOOR, ST. ANDREWS BUILDING, EGLBP CAMPUS, OFF OF KORAMANGALA, INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 075 AND ALSO OFFICE AT HQX+GF9, QUEENS ROAD, GOVINDA CHETTY COLONY, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 051.

¶8

SRI. RIZWAN ARSHAD S/O. R.Q. ARSHAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Digitally signed MEMBER OF THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE by SHARADA VANI B ASSEMBLY, SHIVAJINAGAR CONSTITUENCY, Location: HIGHCOURT OF NEAR G-2 NO.24, 4^TH STREET, KARNATAKA BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 046.

¶9

SRI. SALEEM AHMED S/O. AZEEZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MEMBER OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, ASHIANA, NO.1375, 12^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 086, AND ALSO OFFICE AT HQX+GF9, QUEENS ROAD, GOVINDA CHETTY COLONY,

¶10

NC: 2024:KHC:6642 WP No. 409 of 2024

¶11

¶12

SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 051.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SHIVAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, SHIVAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 051, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ANNEXURE BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

SRI. SHARAT BABU.R., POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, SHIVAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, KARNATAKA - 560 051.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR R1)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R-2 FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 188 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND SECTION 31 R/W SECTION 103 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 29TH ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRANSFERRED IN THE 42 ND ADDL (SPL COURT TRIAL CASES FILED AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPS AND MLA TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ) IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED (ANNX-A) AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6642 WP No. 409 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. The petitioners/accused Nos.4, 5 & 11 are charged for the offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 31 read with 103 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The allegation is holding of a protest during the period, in which, the Standard Operating Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'SOP') of Covid-19 was in operation.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that for an offence to become punishable under Section 188 IPC, the lawful orders of Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate/Taluka Magistrate should have been violated. The violation here is of other orders of State. Be that submission as it may.

¶25

What merits consideration, at this juncture is

¶26

the lavish manner, in which the cognizance is taken of the offence and summons are issued to the accused. The

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:6642 WP No. 409 of 2024

¶29

Court records the filing of complaint and issues summons to accused Nos.1 to 13 through the jurisdictional police.

¶30

The order of the Court below reads as under:

¶31

"Office to Register this case in CC Register and issue notice to the complainant and issue summons to the accused No.1 to 13, through jurisdictional Police Station Rtb.by 26.08.2022."

¶32

This order on the face of it, does not reflect any application of mind.

¶33

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PEPSI FOODS LTD., VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE - (1988) 5 SCC 749 and in the case of FAKHRUDDIN AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH AND ANOTHER – (2008) 17 SCC 157 has delineated the issue of learned Magistrate requiring to apply the mind while issuing summons on taking cognizance of the offences. In the light of this decision and the order taking cognizance as quoted hereinabove, permitting further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:6642 WP No. 409 of 2024

¶35

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.25317/2022 pending on the file of 42^nd ACMM, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC and Section 31 r/w Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

SMJ

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri. K. J. George v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. J. George 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

Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Vs the Income Tax Officer

Rizwan Arshad Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Vijay Kumar B J Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ut Khadar S/O Late Haji U.T.Fareed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sri U T Khadar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G. Venkatesh Vs Sri T.Venkataramanaiah