Allowed¶29

Balakrishna S/O. Bhimappa Bhajantri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2025CRL.P/100364/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS 2023; S.269 IPC negligent act likely to spread infection; S.270 IPC; Ss.4 & 5 Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020; S.60 Disaster Management Act 2005 cognizance bar; cognizance on police final report without authority of law; abuse of process; Covid-19 SOP violation; mobile shop open beyond prescribed time; Jamakhandi; Bagalkot; C.C.No.3035/2021; NC: 2025:KHC-D:1608; Hemant Chandangoudar; 28 January 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3035/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi ¶29

Balakrishna S/O. Bhimappa Bhajantri Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3035/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 269 IPC could be taken where the charge-sheet contains no material that the petitioner was suffering from any disease or had acted negligently or unlawfully in a manner likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

In the absence of charge-sheet material substantiating that the petitioner was suffering from any disease or had acted negligently or unlawfully in a manner likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 269 of the IPC is impermissible.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Per Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, cognizance of an offence punishable under that Act can be taken only through a private complaint filed by the authority or person specified therein; cognizance taken based on the final report submitted by the police is without the authority of law, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 100364 of 2025 (S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS, 2023), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.), decided 28.01.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC-D:1608). Petitioner, charge-sheeted along with respondent No.2 for offences under Ss.269 and 270 IPC and Ss.4 and 5 of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 in C.C.No.3035/2021, Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Jamakhandi, for allegedly keeping his mobile shop open beyond prescribed time during the Covid-19 SOP on 2.6.2021, sought quashing. Held: (i) with no material in the charge-sheet that the petitioner suffered from any disease or acted negligently or unlawfully so as to spread infection, cognizance under S.269 IPC is impermissible; (ii) cognizance of an offence under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 lies only on a complaint by the authority/person specified in S.60 thereof, so cognizance on the police final report is without authority of law and continuation would be an abuse of process. Petition allowed; proceedings in CC No.3035/2021 quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1608 CRL.P No. 100364 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100364 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BALAKRISHNA S/O. BHIMAPPA BHAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. CABLE OPERATORS, R/O. MAHANTESH NAGAR, NEAR KADLEWADI HOSPITAL, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH JAMKHANDI TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:42 +0530

¶13

VINAYAK S/O. CHIDANAND NADONI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, R/O. TOWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101, REP.BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3035/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 269, 270 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 4 AND 5 OF THE EPIDEMIC DISEASED (AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2020, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, WHO HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1608 CRL.P No. 100364 of 2025

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice for respondent No.1/State.

¶22

The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on 2.6.2021, during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was in effect, the petitioner had kept his mobile shop open beyond the prescribed time.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent/State.

¶25

Section 269 of the IPC deals with a negligent act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. In the present case, no material has been placed along with the charge sheet to substantiate that the petitioner was suffering from any disease or had acted negligently or unlawfully in a manner likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life. In the absence of such material, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 269 of the IPC is impermissible.

¶26

Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 specifies that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by any authority as enumerated in Clause (a) or by

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1608 CRL.P No. 100364 of 2025

¶28

any person as enumerated in Clause (b) of the said Act. In other words, cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act can only be taken through a private complaint filed by the authority/person as specified in Section 60 of the Act. The cognizance taken based on the final report submitted by the police is without the authority of law. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.3035/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, are hereby quashed.

¶30

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶31

JTR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Balakrishna S/O. Bhimappa Bhajantri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishna S/O. Bhimappa Bhajantri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Exora Business Parks Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.K.Monnappa Vs Sri.K.K.Poovaiah

Dr. Natesha D B Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. Manjunaths/O Chandrakaladhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Bhimappa Magadum Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bheemappa Mahadeva Hulloli, Vs State of Karnataka