Sridhara Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.541/2024 (IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.138/2024) OF PERESANDRA POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 132, 352 OF THE BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.MF.C. AT GUDIBANDI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:32645 CRL.P No. 6603 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.541/2024, arising out of a charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case originates from a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a police constable, who was on duty near Peresandra Cross. It is alleged that while respondent No.2 was discharging his official duty and making inquiries with the petitioner, the petitioner refused to hand over the keys of his motorcycle despite being directed to do so, and further obstructed the police officer when he attempted to seize the vehicle and take it to the police station. It is on these allegations of obstruction and use of criminal force that the present complaint came to be lodged, culminating in registration of a crime and subsequent filing of the charge sheet.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:32645 CRL.P No. 6603 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶41

the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶42

The complaint has been perused. The second paragraph of the complaint assumes significance in the present context, and this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the said portion, which reads as under:

¶43

" ಸದ��ಚಕ��ಾಹನವನು�� ದು�ಸದ�ಆ�ಾ��ೆಅ�ಾ � � � ಾ� ಮತು" #$ೈ&'ಾತ(ಾಡು*"ರುವಬ�ೆ- ಎಎ/ಐರವರುಪ�2��ತನ� 3ೆಸರು45ಾಸ6ೇಳ9ಾ�ಗ;ೇಶ=> ಪ?ಣA , 21 ವಷC , DEಾF" , ಬಲDಗರು , �ಾಸ - ಪ?Eೆ��(ಾ�ೇನಹHI�ಾ�ಮ , JಕKಬ5ಾIಪLರMಾಲೂ�ಕು ಎಂದುH�ದು�ಸದ��ಚಕ��ಾಹನವನು�Pಾ;ೆಯಬHMೆ�ೆದು6ೊಂಡು ಬರುವಂMೆ 6ೇHದು� (ಾನು ಬರುವL�ಲ � ೆಂದು ಏರು ಧT�ಯ�� 'ಾತ(ಾ�ದು� ��ಚಕ� �ಾಹನದ Uೕ 6ೊಡುವಂMೆ 6ೇHದು� ಅದ6ೆK ಆ�ಾ�ಯುUೕಯನು�6ೊಡVೆU�ಕ�'ಾಡು"ದು�ಆಗಅ� � ೆ ಬಂದ ತನ� ಸಂಬಂ��ಾದ 2�ೕಧರ => ಮು��ೆಂಕಟಪ? , 30 ವಷC , ಬಲDಗರು , ಏXYೕZC ನ��6ೆಲಸ , �ಾಸ - ಎ/Vೇವ�ಾನಹHI �ಾ�ಮ , 2ಡ�ಘಟ\Mಾಲೂ�ಕುರವರು ��ಚಕ� �ಾಹನವನು� Pಾ;ೆಯ ಬH Mೆಗದು6ೊಂಡು3ೋಗು*"ರು�ಾಗಇಬ^ರುನಮ_ನು�ಸ6ಾC�6ೆಲಸವನು� 'ಾಡದಂMೆಅ��ಪ�� , ಮತು" ನಮ_ನುಕು�ತುY�ೕ/ ನನ�ಮ_ಕಳದು `ಾ�" ಆಯು" ಎಂದುಅ�ಾಚa ಶಬ�ಗHಂದ$ೈ�ರುMಾ"(ೆ . ಗ;ೇಶರವರು ��ಚಕ��ಾಹನವನು�=ಟು\ ಸbಳ�ಂದಓ�3ೋ�ದು�ಅ��dೕಇದ� 2�ೕದರರವರನು�ಮತು" ��ಚಕ��ಾಹವನು�ವಶ6ೆK ಪ�ೆದುPಾ;ೆಯಬH

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:32645 CRL.P No. 6603 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Mೆ�ೆದು6ೊಂಡುಬಂದು3ಾಜರುಪ��"ದು�ಮುಂ�ನ6ಾನೂನು�ೕಯ ಕ�ಮಜರು�ಸಲುವರ��ೕಡು*"ರುMೆ"ೕ(ೆ . "

¶48

On a careful reading of the second paragraph of

¶49

the complaint, what emerges is that the petitioner was allegedly non-cooperative with respondent No.2, who was on duty at Peresandra Cross. This alleged non-cooperation is stated to have prompted respondent No.2 to lodge the complaint which resulted in the registration of the present crime. However, the records produced before this Court clearly disclose that, on the very spot of the incident, the petitioner was subjected to a penalty for violation of traffic rules. A sum of Rs.1,500/- was collected from him as fine, which is evidenced by the official receipt produced at page No.22 of the record. The nature of the violation is also not in serious dispute, it was found that the petitioner was riding his motorcycle while speaking over a mobile phone, which constitutes a traffic infraction and for which the penalty has already been imposed and paid.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32645 CRL.P No. 6603 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Once it is evident that the respondent police official, in discharge of his duty, had already levied a fine and the petitioner has paid the same, the subsequent registration of a crime under Sections 132 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in respect of the very same incident, amounts to prosecuting the petitioner twice for what is essentially one and the same act. Having collected the fine, the matter ought to have rested there, and at best, the petitioner could have been warned not to repeat such conduct. The registration of a criminal case, filing of a charge sheet, and compelling the petitioner to face a protracted trial on such allegations, particularly when the monetary penalty has already been collected, would amount to subjecting him to unnecessary harassment and would fall within the ambit of abuse of process of law.

¶53

It is well-settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under BNSS) is to be exercised

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32645 CRL.P No. 6603 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the facts of the present case, permitting the criminal prosecution to continue, despite the admitted imposition and payment of fine, serves no fruitful purpose and would only burden the petitioner with avoidable criminal proceedings. However, while quashing the proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to issue a caution to the petitioner that he shall not indulge in any act of obstruction.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶59

ii) The proceedings pending in C.C. No.541/2024, arising out of Crime No.138/2024 of Peresandra Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gudibande, are hereby quashed.

¶60