Sri Nagappa S/O Siddappa Banne Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10752 CRL.P No. 100019 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100019 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BANNE, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYATH OFFICE, BEKAWAD VILLAGE, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 120.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.M. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH NANDAGAD P.S., R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAKESH S RAKESH HARIHAR S Location: HIGHCOURT OF HARIHAR KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

SRI. SANDEEP S/O LAXMAN CHALAVADI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL WORK, R/O. KAGGANAGI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 120.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP R1; R2-SERVED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.24/2024 BEFORE THE NANDAGAD P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, AT KHANAPUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 2 OF PREVENTION OF INSULTS TO NATIONAL HONOURS ACT 1971, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10752 CRL.P No. 100019 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶23

Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.24 of 2024 registered by Nandagad Police Station Belagavi District, for offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 (for short, the ‘Act’), which is pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & CJM, Khanapur.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

In the first information, which is submitted by Sandeepa Chalavadi, who is said to be a social worker he has alleged that on 08.02.2024, the Indian National Flag, which was hoisted, on the Gramapanchayat building, was not brought down after sunset and therefore petitioner who is the Panchayat Development Officer of the said Grama Panchayat had committed the alleged offence.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10752 CRL.P No. 100019 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, in respect of the very same allegation, a departmental enquiry was held by the Zilla Panchayat against the petitioner and he had offered an explanation to the show cause notice stating that, the duty of bringing down the national flag hoisted on the Gram Panchayar building was assigned to some other employees of the Gram Panchayat and therefore he cannot be held guilty or liable for dereliction of duty. Considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the departmental enquiry held as against him was closed. Even otherwise, for the purpose of invoking the offence punishable under Section 2 of the Act, the Act committed by accused should be intentional. Considering the nature of allegations found in the first information, it cannot be said that petitioner had intentionally not brought down the national flag after sunset on 08.02.2024.

¶29

Under similar circumstances, in the case of STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. D SENTHIL KUMAR in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15656 OF 2020 DATED 22.03.2021 by the High Court of Madras in paragraph No. 43, it is observed as follows:-

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10752 CRL.P No. 100019 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

43. Relying on Amgonda (cited supra), the Bombay High Court held the following in the case of Dr. Varsha w/o Raj Salunke v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2805 : (2019) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) (NOC 12) 5.

¶34

“9. ……. In “Amgonda” (Supra). It has been observed, ‘7. Explanation 4 mentions various acts of dishonour in clauses (a) to (l). Perusal of the said section clearly reveals that one of the essential ingredients of the said offence is that disrespect, contempt of the Flag should be intentional. Similarly, Explanation 4 gives various instances of disrespect to the Indian National Flag. The offence of not lowering down the Flag after sunset does not fall either in the various instances which are mentioned in Explanation 4 or in Section 2 of the said Act. The averments in the complaint, therefore, even if they are accepted at its face value, does not constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 2 of the said Act.’

¶35

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶36