Karnataka High Court
Naveed Ahmed vs State By Narasimraja Police Station on 19 June, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2057/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEED AHMED,
S/O. IQBAL AHMAD,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
NO.284, GURAPPAN PALYA,
MASJID MOHALLA,
BANNERGATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
2. DADAPEER,
S/O. IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED BOUT 40 YEARS,
GUTTAL, SADARABIN ROAD,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
3. IQBAL PASHA,
S/O. ABDUL BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.2634, K.T.STREET,
MANDIMOHALLA,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 021.
4. IRFAN KHAN,
S/O. FAZLE KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
NO.8, 2ND FLOOR,
SHANTHI NAGAR, 3RD MAIN BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
5. UMAR FAROOQ,
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2
NO.146/A, A.N.T.I.LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGLAORE - 560 097.
6. ABDUL AZEEZ,
S/O. AHMAD KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.195, FLAT NO.8, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 072.
7. IMDAD,
S/O. ALEEMULLA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
HUNSUR,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
8. SAMIULLA,
S/O. MUNEER,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
CHAMRAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
9. SHAFIZ AHAMED,
S/O. LATE ABDUL MUJEEB,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.282, AZEEZ SAIT NAGAR,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 019.
10. SYED NOOR,
S/O. SYED ANWAR,
A.J.GARDEN,
KALYAN PURAM,
BANGALORE - 560043.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHAIK MOHAMED ANNUS, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY NARASIMRAJA
POLICE STATION,
REP. GOVERNMETN ADVOCATE,
A.G.OFFICE,
3
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE - 01.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SSP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS I.E., THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1082/2011
PENDING IN THE FILES OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MYSORE IN CR.NO.283/2009 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE AND THIS PETITIONERS ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED NO.54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 96 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 143, 145, 147, 148, 114, 332,
341, 353, 326, 333, 307, 102(A) R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Shaik Mohamed Annus, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.Sandesh Chouta, learned SPP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. On 09.07.2009, a protest is said to have been organized by an organization called Popular Front of India (PFI) and Karnataka Forum for Dignity (KFD) near Jeelani petrol Bunk, Mysore. As a result of which, number of persons from the minority community had 4 gathered, inspite of prohibitory orders having been issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Hence, first informant namely Suresh, who was the then Assistant Commissioner of Police and in-charge of said area had issued warring to the crowd, who are gathering at the above said place and in spite of his warning to disperse, they had not dispersed and it resulted in lathi charge being resorted to. This resulted in mob turning violent and resulted in stone pelting on the police officer, Mr.Ramesh who was at the spot and he is said to have been attacked with a Knife, due to which he is said to have sustained bleeding injuries on his face. It is also stated that other police officers also sustained injuries due to stone pelting. Hence, first informant lodged a complaint with Narasimharaja Police Station against 52 persons, which was registered in Cr.No.283/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 332, 341, 353, 326, 333, 307, 153 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 5
3. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet also came to be filed against 96 persons including the petitioners. On account of matter having not been committed to the Committal Court, petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings contending inter-alia that petitioners are victim at the hands of police and merely because petitioners have taken treatment at the hospital, they have been falsely implicated by the Jurisdictional Police and witnesses to the alleged incident are the police officials and their statement are verbatim and for the past seven years, matter is pending before the Committal Court and for no fault petitioners are made to suffer. Hence, they have sought for quashing of the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition.
6
5. Per contra, learned SPP would support the prosecution alleged against the petitioners and has prayed for rejection of the petition contending when offence alleged against the petitioners is one under Section 307 of IPC, without conducting trial, proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it requires to be noticed that inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only after carefully examining the facts and circumstances obtained in each case and if it is found that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court or an abuse of process of law, then only, Court would step-in to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The abuse of process of law is one of the basic criteria on which the Court would quash the proceedings and in the absence thereof exercise of extraordinary 7 jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., proceedings will be quashed.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid, Courts would not quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
8. The question as to whether petitioners herein had participated in the incident alleged by the prosecution and as to the overt-act of each of the petitioners are all matter of evidence. As such at this stage, it would be not just and proper to quash the proceedings.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 8 (2014) 14 SCC 222 has held that concept of 'justice' encompasses not just the rights of the convict, but also of victims of crime as well as law abiding citizens of the society who look towards the Courts as vital instruments for preservation of peace by curtailment or containment of crime by punishing those who transgress the law. It if further held that if convicts can circumvent the consequence of their conviction, peace, tranquility and harmony in society will be reduced to a chimera.
10. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted herein above when the facts and circumstances of the case are examined, it would disclose that despite there being prohibitory order issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C, there was congregation, in which petitioners are said to have been participated by forming unlawful assembly which resulted in latti charge and due to stone pelting, jurisdictional police constable had sustained stab wound as already noticed herein above. As to the actual overt-act of the petitioners, it is a matter of evidence or trial. As such, this Court is of the view that 9 petition is liable to be dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits.
In that view of the matter, the criminal petition is hereby dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to take such steps as may be advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM