Sri. Siddappa Buthali Vatasa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025CRL.P/100577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; CRL.P 100577/2025; quashing; Section 96(b) Karnataka Police Act 1963 (face covered/disguised between sunset and sunrise); Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. non-compliance; order sheet requirement; abuse of process; Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi ILR 2020 KAR 630 relied on; Crime No.44/2024 Sub Urban P.S. Dharwad; C.C. No.1307/2024 Prl. Civil Judge/JMFC Dharwad; S. Vishwajith Shetty J.; decided 02-09-2025; petition allowed, proceedings quashed; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C. No.1307/2024 pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad, arising out of Crime No.44/2024 registered by Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, for offence punishable under Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 against the petitioner are quashed. ¶¶38

Sri. Siddappa Buthali Vatasa Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1307/2024 (arising out of Crime No.44/2024, Sub Urban P.S. Dharwad) for offence under Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 should be quashed as against the petitioner. +2 more

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

There is no allegation in the first information that the petitioner had his face covered or was otherwise disguised with the intent to commit the offence when found between sunset and sunrise; therefore a serious doubt arises whether the offence punishable under Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is attracted against the petitioner.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

Since the alleged offence under Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is non-compoundable in nature, compliance with Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. was necessary before registering the FIR and investigating the case.ratio¶¶31
The order allegedly passed under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. on 06.03.2024 does not appear in the order sheet of the jurisdictional Court, whereas (as observed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi, ILR 2020 KAR 630) any order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. should find place in the order sheet of the Court continuing the proceedings; hence, allowing the impugned criminal proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting quashing.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS) allowed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.), quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1307/2024 (Crime No.44/2024, Sub-Urban P.S. Dharwad) under Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Grounds: (i) the first information contains no allegation that the petitioner had his face covered or was otherwise disguised with intent to commit an offence while found between sunset and sunrise, raising serious doubt whether Section 96(b) is attracted; (ii) the offence is non-compoundable, making compliance with Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. necessary before FIR registration and investigation; and (iii) the order allegedly passed under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on 06.03.2024 is absent from the jurisdictional Court's order sheet — contrary to the observation of a Co-ordinate Bench in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630, that any such order must find place in the order sheet. Continuance of the proceedings was held to amount to abuse of process of law, and the proceedings were quashed against the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11168 CRL.P No. 100577 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100577 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SIDDAPPA BUTHALI VATASA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: GOURIBEERI VILLAGE, TALUK: AFZALPUR – 585 301, DIST: KALABURAGI, NOW R/AT: ANJANEYA NAGAR, SHIVSHAKTINAGAR, TALUK AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD – 580 001. (THROUGH SUB URBAN P.S. DHARWAD)

¶12

Digitally signed by RAKESH S RAKESH HARIHAR SHARIHAR Location:HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1307/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC DHARWAD (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.44/2024 REGISTERED BY SUB URBAN P.S. DHARWAD) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 96(B) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION INSOFOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11168 CRL.P No. 100577 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the

¶23

entire proceedings in C.C. No.1307/2024 pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad arising out of Crime No.44/2024 registered by Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad for offence punishable under Section 96(b) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations found in the first information and charge sheet is presumed to be true, the alleged offences cannot be made out against the petitioner. He submits that there is no compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶26

Per contra , learned HCGP has opposed the petition.

¶27

Section 96 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 provides for punishment to an accused who is found under suspicious circumstances between sunset and sunrise. Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 reads as follows:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11168 CRL.P No. 100577 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

“96(b) having his face covered, or otherwise disguised with intent to commit an offence.”

¶31

There is no such allegation in the first information that the petitioner had his face covered or otherwise disguised with the intent to commit the offence on the alleged date when he was found between sunset and sunrise by the first respondent. Therefore, a serious doubt arises whether the offence punishable under Section 96(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 gets attracted against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the alleged offence is non-compoundable in nature and therefore, compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. becomes necessary in the matter before registering FIR and investigating the case.

¶32

In the case on hand, the order allegedly passed under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. on 06.03.2024 is not found in the order sheet maintained by the Jurisdictional Court in the impugned criminal proceedings. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi¹ has observed that any order passed under Section

¶33

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11168 CRL.P No. 100577 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

155(2) Cr.P.C., should find place in the order sheet of the Court in which the further proceedings of the case is continued. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned criminal proceedings if allowed to be continued, the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶39

The entire proceedings in C.C. No.1307/2024 pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad arising out of Crime No.44/2024 registered by Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad for offence punishable under Section 96(b) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 against the petitioner is quashed.

¶40

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶41

RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri. Siddappa Buthali Vatasa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Siddappa Buthali Vatasa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Aditya S/O Nagesh Banavalikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mansur S/O Husen Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

E a Charanraj S/O. E a Allappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahiboob Vs the State of Karnataka

Newton Manilal Parmar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mubeen Akhter Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.