Afzal S/O Abdul Rehaman Rajagoli Vs the State by Market Ps

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NO. 1 AND 2/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 3 IN CRIME NO. 326/2017, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 3 AND 4 OF KARNATAKA OPEN PLACES (PREVENTION OF DISFIGUREMENT) ACT, 1981, IN C.C.NO.282/2020, PENDING ON THE FILE II JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:287 CRL.P No. 100255 of 2023

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981. The prosecution alleges that a head constable of Market Police Station, Belagavi, while patrolling Veerabhadra Nagar, 7th Cross, towards the double road, observed posters and pamphlets affixed to electrical poles located in the median of the road. These posters stated, “Babri Masjid Dec 6, 1992 - Dec 6, 2017: 25 years of National Shame. Rebuilding is a National Responsibility.” Upon further inquiry, the head constable identified the petitioners as the individuals responsible for affixing the posters and sought legal action against them.

¶24

The petitioners had previously approached this Court in Crl.P.No.101349/2022, which was dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate application for discharge. The petitioners subsequently filed a discharge application, arguing that the complaint was barred by limitation. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the application, stating that cognizance had been taken within the prescribed time.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC-D:287 CRL.P No. 100255 of 2023

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) contended that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court, and hence, the successive petition is not maintainable. The grounds raised in the earlier criminal petition were as follows:

¶28

i. That the proceedings initiated against the petitioners violated Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., as the Court cannot take cognizance unless a public servant files a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the registration of the case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, is illegal and barred by statute.

¶29

ii. That the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are non-cognizable, and the police are prohibited from investigating the matter without prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

iii. That the date of complaint is 06.12.2017, while the charge sheet was filed on 15.06.2020, and the Magistrate took cognizance on 17.06.2020. There was a delay of 3 years, 6 months, and 15 days from the registration of the FIR. As per Section 468(2) of the Cr.P.C., cognizance should have been taken within one year, making it barred by limitation.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:287 CRL.P No. 100255 of 2023

¶32

4. In the present petition, the petitioners challenge the

¶33

cognizance taken on the ground that the complainant has failed to disclose the source of information regarding who affixed the posters on the electrical poles. The prosecution’s case is entirely based on the statement of the constable, who allegedly gathered information that the petitioners were responsible for affixing the posters. However, the source of this information has not been disclosed by the complainant, rendering the allegation that the petitioners are responsible for affixing the posters unsubstantiated.

¶34