Prakash S/O Laxman Wangnekar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1047 CRL.P No. 100187 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100187 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PRAKASH S/O. LAXMAN WANGNEKAR AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. # 763, SAHYADRI NAGAR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶7

PRAVEEN S/O. SURESH MORE AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PL.NO.1101, CTS NO.0159, BOUXITE ROAD, DIST. BELAGAVI-591108.

¶8

MARUTI S/O. KRISHNA JADHAV AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 2^ND CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590016.

¶9

AMIT S/O. BABU BABARWALE AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.24, TILAKWADI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590006.

¶10

B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B KMAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.03.01 12:14:16 +0530

¶11

KULADEEP S/O. KRISHNA BELGUNDIKAR AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.158, RAMDEV GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591108.

¶12

BHUSHAN S/O. UDAY KALLIMANI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KULKARNI GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

SASHIKANTH S/O. GANGARAM JADHAV AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PL NO.810, SAHYADRI NAGAR, DIST. BELAGAVI-590019.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1047 CRL.P No. 100187 of 2025

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY APMC YARD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING.

¶20

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.403/2021 IN APMC YARD P.S. BELAGAVI, CRIME NO.84/2021 FILED ON 12.10.2021 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 188, 447 OF IPC AND U/S 4, 5(1), (2), (4) OF THE KARNATAKA EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT 2020 AND U/S 3 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE IV JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI HAS PRESENTED THIS CRIMINAL PETITION THEREBY REGISTERING THE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 7/ ACCUSED NO.22 TO 28 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING THEREON.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The Petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 447 of IPC and under Sections 4, 5(2), 5(1) (4) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 and under Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶25

Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent – State.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1047 CRL.P No. 100187 of 2025

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, the Petitioners in violation of the Standard Operating Procedure, in subsistence during Covid-19 Pandemic, by forming an unlawful assembly trespassed into the property belonging to the Belagavi City Corporation and intended to install Shivaji Statue. Unlawful assembly of the Petitioners during the subsistence of prohibitory order is an offence under Section 188(A) of IPC.

¶29

As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C, 1973 that deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence , specifies that:

¶30

“no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, ( both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 except, on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate” .

¶31

According to sub-section 2 of section 195 Cr.P.C, 1973 , with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, reads as under:

¶32

“Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court, and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken against the complainant”.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and another -vs- Prasad Vassudev & Others , reported in (2020) 20 SCC 1 , The Hon'ble

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1047 CRL.P No. 100187 of 2025

¶36

Apex court in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and another -vs- Prasad Vassudev Keni and other reported in (2020) 20 SCC 1 has held as follows:

¶37

" 48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)( b ) CrPC must be followed.

¶38

The Petitioners are charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1964. The FIR was registered on 8.8.2021 and the investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed on 27.9.2021.

¶39

Section 9 of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020, deals with Cognizance, investigation and trial of offences, and Clause (iii) of Section 9 states that investigation of a case under section 5 or section 6 shall be completed within a period of thirty days from the date of registration of the First Information Report.

¶40

In the instance case, the FIR was registered on 08.08.2021 and the investigation was completed on 08.09.2021. The charge sheet material does not contain any substantive evidence to establish that the petitioners were infected with the Corona-virus.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1047 CRL.P No. 100187 of 2025

¶43

On the perusal of the charge sheet material, which indicated that except Omnibus and General Allegation, there are no specific overt acts against each of the petitioners as to who caused damage to the properties belonging to the Belagavi City Corporation.

¶44