Athaulla Jokatte v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2025CRL.P/6290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka (17.04.2025, Mohammad Nawaz J): quashing of proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C.; unlawful assembly; common object; Sections 141/143/149 IPC; mass FIR against 300+ unknown persons; selective charge sheet against only 29 accused; vague allegations; CAA protest; Section 144 Cr.P.C.; Section 2(A) KPDLP Act; JMFC Mangaluru; cites Charan Singh (2004) 4 SCC 205 and Crl.P.No.6763/2020 (11.03.2022). Useful for S.482 quashing petitions where accused are unidentified in the FIR/complaint and the rationale for arraignment is absent.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1058/2020 pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru quashed. ¶¶63

Athaulla Jokatte Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6290 OF 2022

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ATHAULLA JOKATTE,

¶11

S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN BAVA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/191/2, ZAHARABADA HOUSE, M.P. ROAD, JOKATTE, 62 THOKUR VILLAGE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 030.

¶12

NAWAZ ULLAL

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

S/O LATE ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT MASTER COMPOUND MASTIKATTE ULLAL, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 017.

¶15

ABDUL JALEEL K @ JALEEL KRISHNAPURA, S/O LATE CHEYYABBA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.1/13/1, ASHRAF COTTAGE, YUSUF NAGAR, KANNUR, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 007, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.201, KAMALDEEPA APARTMENT, OLD KENT ROAD, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶18

MOHAMMED SHARIFF @ SHARIEF PANDESHWARA S/O HAMEED MOIDEEN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.19-5-329/1 H.M.S COMPOUND, NEAR RAILWAY TRACK, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶19

MUZAIR AHMED @ MUZAIR KUDROLI S/O LATE HAMZA R/AT HOUSE NO.8-4-1210, C P C COMPOUND, KUDROLI, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 003.

¶20

ABDUL MAJEED S/O MOOSABBA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NEAR KBS 62 THOKUR VILLAGE, JOKATTE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 030.

¶21

AFFAN ABDUL REHAMAN, S/O ABDUL REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT S.A. MANZIL SUNKADAKATTE, KADABA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 221.

¶22

NOUFAL KUDROLI, S/O HAMZA, R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-4-1210, C.P.C COMPOUND, KUDROLI, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT -575 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶26

SRI. SABEEULLA, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.2-502, SANA MANZIL, SUNKADAKATTE, KOLAMBE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 151.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1058/2020 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 427, 120B, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.2(a) OF KPDLP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-JMFC MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT IN THE ABOVE CASE.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioners / accused Nos.22 to 29 have preferred this petition to quash the entire proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.1058/2020 on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional SPP for the State and perused the material on record.

¶37

Crime No.245/2019 of Mangaluru South Police Station came to be registered against a group of more than 300 people for offences Punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for brevity ‘KPDLP’ Act).

¶38

It is alleged that on 19.12.2019 at about 11:00 a.m., the first informant had parked his car bearing registration No.KA-19-MA-3900 in front of Global Hardware shop, Nellikai road, Bandaru, Mangaluru and at about 03:15 p.m., more than 300 persons who had formed an unlawful assembly, pelted stones at shops, vehicles etc. and caused damage to his car to the tune of Rs.70,000/- etc.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶41

Charge sheet came to be filed against 29 accused persons for the offence Punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 427, 120-B, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) KPDLP Act.

¶42

The charge sheet allegations are that all the accused in order to protest against implementation of CAA, inspite of imposition of restriction under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., assembled near the spot and shouted slogans, pelted stones at the vehicles and public properties etc. It is alleged, the petitioners being the leaders of different organizations have conspired to commit the offence and instigated other accused etc.

¶43

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that in order to file charge sheet under Section 143 of IPC, the ingredients of Section 141 of IPC have to be shown and mere presence in an unlawful assembly, cannot render a person liable, unless it is shown that there was a common object and that object is one of those set down under Section 141 of IPC. He contended that if the common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶45

be convicted under the main offence with the aid of Section 143 or Section 149 of IPC.

¶46

In support of the above contention, the learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶47

CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF UTTAR

¶48

PRADESH reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205 . Paragraph No.13 of the above judgment is extracted herein under:-

¶49

“13. Coming to the others who were armed with double-barrelled guns and countrymade pistols, the question is regarding applicability of Section 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶52

objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141. The word “object” means the purpose or design and, in order to make it “common”, it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression “in prosecution of common object” as appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly construed as equivalent to “in order to attain the common object”. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶55

be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful assembly may have community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the same assembly.”

¶56

In an identical case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.6763/2020 decided on 11.03.2022 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Charan Singh’s case ( supra ), quashed the proceedings initiated against petitioners therein.

¶57

Admittedly, FIR was registered against more than 300 unknown persons. Petitioners are admittedly, strangers to the complainant. The descriptions of the persons who were in the mob are not stated in the complaint. The charge sheet was filed only against 29 accused without any sufficient reasons for

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:16040 CRL.P No. 6290 of 2022

¶60

not arraigning others in the mob as accused. The material on record, except vague allegations, are insufficient to proceed against the petitioners. Hence, the following:-

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) Petition is allowed .

¶63

ii) The entire proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.1058/2020 pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru is quashed.

¶64

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶65

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK

Athaulla Jokatte v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athaulla Jokatte 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

Sadiq Vs State by Shivalli Ps

Smt Nandini L M Vs Devaraj P

H R Puttaswamygowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B.S.N. Hari Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Zabiulla Vs the State of Karnataka