Karnataka High Court
Sri. Allan Lopez vs State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20448
CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7579 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. ALLAN LOPEZ
S/O BELLINDA LOPEZ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO. 246, 8TH CROSS,
I B MAIN, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
NAGASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560073
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKSHAY RAVIDRA PRABHU,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI BENGALURU CITY,
Location: HIGH REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001
2. SRI. NAGARAJU G
ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR,
CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION,
KASTURBA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20448
CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO i. SET ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 24.05.2022, PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.15733/2022, WHICH READS - PERUSED THE CHARGE
SHEET MATERIALS, COGNIZANCE IS TAKEN FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 353, 504 OF IPC AND SECTION 51(b) OF NATIONAL
DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, OFFICE TO REGISTER AS
CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED, ISSUE S.S. TO
ACCUSED, CALL ON 25.07.2022 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.15733/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC and under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri. Akshay Ravindra Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is said to be freely walking on the street within the jurisdiction of the Cubbon Park Police Station at about 10.50 p.m., at which point in time, the Station House Officer of the Cubbon park -3- NC: 2024:KHC:20448 CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022 police station intercepts the petitioner and asks him why he was moving around at 10.50 p.m. that too when night curfew was clamped in the area at that relevant point in time.
4. The petitioner, who is alleged to have been in an inebriated state has hurled abuse against the policeman by calling him as ºÉà ¨Éèr ¥Éưøï PÀªÀiï EAiÀÄgï. This becomes a complaint registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 353 of the IPC, read with Section 51(b) of the Act including the offence under Section 332 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 51(b) of the Act. Therefore, for the filing the charge sheet, the offence punishable under Sections 188 and 332 of the IPC are dropped. The filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the abuse that is hurled against the public servant, the police in the case at hand, would not come up to the ingredients under Section 353 of the IPC, yet to become an -4- NC: 2024:KHC:20448 CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022 offence for which a trial should necessarily be conducted. He would seek quashment of the proceedings contending that it is an abuse of the process of the law, if further proceedings are permitted to continue.
6. The learned HCGP would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has spoken in a manner that would undoubtedly become Section 353 of the IPC and has not permitted the policeman to perform his duty. Therefore, the petitioner is necessarily be to come out clean in the trial.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute as observed hereinabove, it lies in a narrow compass. On the night of 28-01-2022 at about 10.50 pm, the petitioner is intercepted by the jurisdictional police of the Cubbon park Police Station, due to which, certain altercation appears to have happened between the police and the petitioner. The petitioner, who was admittedly in an inebriated state, is said to have hurled abuse -5- NC: 2024:KHC:20448 CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022 to the police, "ºÉà ¨Éèr ¥Éưøï PÀªÀiï EAiÀÄgï", whether this would amount to an offence under Section 353 of the IPC is necessary to be noticed. For an action to become an offence under section 353 of the IPC, the ingredients that are found in Section 353 of the IPC itself need to be present. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows.
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 353 of the IPC mandates that the public servant must be stopped from performing his duty by use of criminal force.
9. The allegation in the case at hand is hurling of a solitary abuse as quoted hereinabove. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC for further proceedings to be permitted to be continued. The altercations between the two have lead to the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:20448 CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022 drawing up of Section 504 of the IPC also as an offence that needs to be tried. In the light of the offence under Section 353 of the IPC not being met in the case at hand, permitting further trial qua Section 504 of the IPC would also become an abuse of the process of the law, for it also not meeting the ingredients as available under Section 503 of the IPC. What remains is an offence under Section 51(b) of the Act. Since curfew had been clamped on the said day when the petitioner was caught by police in a inebriated state, the offence under Section 51(b) of the Act is sought to be invoked. It is, in the considered view of the Court, loosely invoked, as Section 51(b) of the Act requires prior notice of 15 days to be given to the accused and then the registration of the crime should come about. Therefore, on all these grounds, permitting further proceedings would become contrary to law and result in miscarriage of justice.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:20448 CRL.P No. 7579 of 2022
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.15733/2022 pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51