Mr. Thulasi Naik @ Esudash Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr. Thulasi Naik @ Esudash Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

Court's answer

The point for consideration — whether the petitioners have made out grounds to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings — is answered in the negative.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' contention that Section 196 Cr.PC bars proceeding with registration of the criminal case under Section 295A IPC finds no merit on the facts of this case: admittedly no investigation was undertaken beyond registration of the FIR (an interim stay having been obtained), and cognizance by the learned Magistrate would be taken only after filing of the final report by the Investigating Officer — a stage not yet reached; the petitioners are therefore not entitled to any relief.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.241/2022 of Channapatna Rural Police Station (offences punishable under Sections 295A, 298, 504, 506, 511 read with Section 34 IPC), registered on the informant's allegations that the accused, followers of Christianity, set up a church at Lambani Thanda and attempted forcible conversion of persons of the Lambani sect, offered inducements and criminally intimidated the informant. Counsel contended that Section 196 Cr.PC barred registration of a case under Section 295A IPC, citing State of Karnataka and Another v/s Pastor P Raju (AIR 2006 SC 2825), where it was stated that previous sanction is necessary only for taking cognizance and does not bar registration or investigation. The court held the contention devoid of merit on these facts: no investigation had been undertaken beyond registration of the FIR owing to an interim stay, and cognizance would follow only the filing of the final report — a stage not reached. The point was answered in the negative and the petition dismissed. (Mrs Justice M G Uma; 21 January 2025)

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10000 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

MR. THULASI NAIK @ ESUDASH, S/O. HOSARAMA NAIK, AGE 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAMBANI TANDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

MRS. DEVI @ MERI, AGE 41 YEARS, W/O. THULASI NAIK JOHN, RESIDING AT LAMBANI TANDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VICTOR MANOHARAN .S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL CIRCLE POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

MR. VENKATESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKAMARI, RESIDING AT LAMBANI TANDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022

SMT. SATHYAVATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS A.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.241/2022 FILED BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 295A, 298, 504, 506, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.241 of 2022 of Channapatna Rural Police Station, Ramanagara District, pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jn.Dn) & JMFC, Channapatna, registered for the offence punishable under Section 295A, 298, 504, 506, 511, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information against accused Nos. 1 and 2 stating that, they being the followers of Christianity, set up a church in lambani thanda and trying to forcefully convert the innocent persons belonging to lambani sect, who are observing

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022

Hindu culture. The accused were offering money and valuables to induce and to convert the persons. The accused have also criminally intimidated the informant and other members of the community, deliberately insulted their religious feeling, etc,. and therefore, requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police have registered the case and took up the investigation. In the meantime, petitioners approached this Court and got the interim order of stay and therefore, no investigation was undertaken.

Heard Sri. Victor Manoharan S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Sathyavathi, learned counsel for Sri. Srinivas A R, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners belongs to Christian community and they have set up a church and propagating their religion. However, false allegations are made against them.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, there is a bar for proceeding with the registration of criminal case in view of Section 196 of Cr.PC, since it is a complaint under Section 295A of IPC. In that regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Another v/s Pastor P Raju¹ . The proposition of law highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that, the previous sanction is necessary only for taking cognizance by the Court and made it clear that the bar of sanction will not apply against registration of the criminal case or investigation by the police. It is also made clear that apprehending the accused by the Investigating Officer and the

1 AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2825

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022

learned magistrate remanding the accused to custody would not amount to taking cognizance. Even though this decision is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is not helpful to him in any manner. Admittedly, no investigation was undertaken except registration of FIR. Taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate will be only after filing the final report by the Investigating Officer. That stage has not yet reached. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioners. They are not entitle for any relief.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SPV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17