Karnataka High Court
Anand K S vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24807
CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3314 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ANAND K.S.,
S/O SIDDAPPA K.G.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
KADUR CONSTITUTION,
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY,
R/A NO. 337/3
HALEPETE KADUR TOWN,
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577 548.
2. CHANDRA MOULI
S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Digitally
signed by R/O BASURU VILLAGE,
CHANDANA KADUR TALUK - 577 116
BM
Location:
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
High Court
of Karnataka 3. KARADI VIJAY @ VIJAY
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O RAJIV GANDHI EXTENSION,
KADUR-577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
4. BHADRAVATI VIJAY @ VIJAY
S/O NAGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24807
CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O MUDIYAPPA BADAVANE,
KADURU-577 548,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
5. JIM SRINIVASA, K.G @ SRINIVASA
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O DODDAPETE,
KADUR-577 202
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
6. VINAY @ VIJAY
S/O SATISH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O DODDAPETE,
KADUR-577 202
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
7. HALEPETE HUCHAPPA,
S/O LAKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O T.B.ROAD, HALEPETE,
KADUR - 577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
8. KODIHALLI SRINIVASA,
NAIKA @ SRINIVASA NAIKA
S/O BALAJI NAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O M KODIHALLI
KADUR TALUK-577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
9. KALLESH.T
S/O LATE SRI TIMPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24807
CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF CPC COLONY
KADUR-577 548
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAKSHITH R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUR POLICE
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DAYANANDA R.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D OFFICE, KADUR TOWN,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
KARNATAKA-577 548.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.PC
(FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET IN CR.NO.188/2019 OF KADUR PS FILED AGAINST THIS
PETITIONERS FOR THE O/P/S 353, 427, 504, 506, 143, 147,
149 OF IPC R/W SECTION 3 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO
PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT PENDING ON THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR IN C.C NO.85/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24807
CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition insofar as petitioner No.5- accused No.5 is concerned.
2. Same is placed on record.
3. Accordingly, petition insofar as petitioner No.5- accused No.5 is not pressed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material on record.
5. A perusal of material on record would indicate that the respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated 22.10.2019 against the petitioners alleging offences filed under Sections 353, 427, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149 of IPC r/w Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pursuant to which, the respondent No.1 registered the impugned FIR in Crime No.188/2019 which is presently pending in -5- NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR C.C. No.85/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru District for the aforesaid offence.
6. In this context, a perusal of the impugned FIR, complaint, charge sheet materials, statement of witnesses, document etc., will indicate that the alleged commission of offences by the petitioners 1 to 4 and petitioners 6 to 9 are not forthcoming from the material on record.
7. In this context, it is also relevant to state that in the case of K DHANANJAY VS. CABINET SECRETARY AND OTHERS the Apex Court held has under;
"Leave granted.
The appellant was an employee of Indian Institute of Astrophysics (Autonomous Institute under the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India) in Bangalore. Challenging his dismissal from service, he had filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore Bench.
Meanwhile, the appellant wanted to peruse certain documents, for which permission was given to him. While he was inspecting the documents in -6- NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR the office of Respondent No. 5 Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal at Visveswarayya Kendriya Bhawan, Bangalore, it was alleged that the appellant assaulted the officers and therefore, a case was lodged against him under Sections 353/506 of the Indian Penal Code. His petition for quashing the proceedings has been dismissed and he is before this Court.
Vide order dated 27.08.2024, this Court issued notice to the respondents, including Respondent No. 5 -Ms. A. Thomeena, but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents despite due service.
We have now perused the copy of the complaint Ms. A. which was given by Respondent No. 5 Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under :-
"Sir.
Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. The CIC vide order No. CIC/CAD/MT/A/2018/611756/SD dated 01.07.2019 and asked us to give some documents. We had kept every document ready and asked him to come and get it and inspect the document which he wanted.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR But apparently he wanted some other documents also which we felt had nothing to do with the order of the CIC. Therefore, being an official document, we had refused. Thereupon he started shouting and threatening us. At that time Smt. Rajashri, CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree, who is my PS, and Smt. Geetha who is an MTS were in the room. He threatening and shouted at them and disrupted the work of the office. Hearing the shouts and cries, people around gathered and I had immediately informed the police. Kindly take necessary action."
It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However. the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault.
Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under :-
"353 Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."
We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has -8- NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR committed a mistake In not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
8. The said position was reiterated by this Court in Sri.K Azeez and others vs. The State of Karnataka and another, wherein it has held as under:
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"i) Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.141/2023 of Puttur Town Police Station, D.K., District for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 269, 353, 323, 427, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2(a) and 2(b) of KPDLP Act pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, which is produced at ANNEXURE-'A', in the above case, in the interests of justice."-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned complaint dated 15.08.2021 in order to point out that necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC were missing/absent in the complaint coupled with the fact that the remaining offences are non-cognizable offences, the impugned proceedings without seeking necessary permission under Section 152(2) of Cr.P.C. in relation to the non-cognizable offences deserve to be quashed.
4. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 and this Court in the cases of Athaulla Jokatte and others v. The State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.6314/2022, Sailaja P.V.S. v. The State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.9452/2022 and Shri Vijay Tata v. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.9366/2018.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In Manik Taneja's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:
"8. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
9. In State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal [(1995) 2 SCC 449 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 387] considering the scope of Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR/criminal proceedings, this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 450, para 4)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR "4. ... The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the first information report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] ) but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner."
10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR 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."
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
7. The said judgment was followed by this Court in Vijay Tata's, wherein it held as under:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR "Heard Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
2. This petition is filed challenging FIR No.59/2018 registered on 13.12.2018 in Vidhana Soudha police station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 & 120B of IPC against petitioner and two others.
3. Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior advocate, adverting to the complaint lodged by one Shri Manjunath.B, Police Inspector, CCB, Bengaluru, pointed out that the contents of complaint are to the effect that Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin held a press conference in Press club in Bengaluru on 12.12.2018 and in the said press conference, they had allegedly made certain uncharitable allegations against Police officers, CCB, who were investigating the offences in respect of a Company called 'Ambident'; and stated that their investigation had facilitated the accused in the said case to obtain bail. With the said allegations, instant complaint has been lodged alleging offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC in Vidhana Soudha police station. He argued that if the complaint is read in its entirety, it does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR He placed reliance on Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another1 and submitted that the instant complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
4. Shri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General argued in support of the complaint.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Senior Advocate, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the records.
6. Section 353 of 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." (emphasis supplied) 1 (2015) 7 SCC 423
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. In substance, what is alleged in the complaint is that two persons namely, Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin had made certain uncharitable comments against Police officers. When the allegations levelled in the complaint are examined in the light of language employed in Section 353 of IPC, it is clear that complaint does not contain any allegation of assault or use of criminal force to a public servant with intent to prevent him from discharging his duty. It is unfortunate that Police officers have resorted to registering a complaint without there being any ingredients attributable to Section 353 of IPC. In Manik Taneja, the Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
"10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which read 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
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR 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."
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent that second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
8. In the circumstances, it leaves no doubt that the allegations in the complaint do not conform to the attributes and ingredients of Section 353 of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR IPC. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and is accordingly allowed. FIR No.59/2018 registered in Vidhana Soudha Police station pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and all further proceedings thereon are quashed.
9. At this stage, Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate contends that since this Court has taken a view that FIR is bad in law and quashed the same, any materials seized during the course of investigation shall be returned. He is right in his contention. In the circumstances, respondents are directed to release any or all articles seized during the course of investigation, forthwith.
10. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs."
8. Subsequently, under identical circumstances in Athaulla Jokatte's case supra, this Court held as under:
"The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1137/2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR 143, 147, 148, 427, 353, 332, 188, 109, 120-B read with Section 14 of the IPC and Sections 2(a) and (b) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, disposed on 18.06.2021. The learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the position that the issue stands covered by the aforesaid judgment, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWS.5 to 8.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences.
6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.
7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant.
9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.
10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed.
The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed."
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii Proceedings pending in C.C.No. 1137/2020 before the II JMFC Court, Mangalore, stands quashed qua the petitioners."
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. The said position was reiterated by this Court in Sailaja's case supra, wherein it held as under:
"The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.5258/2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.K.S.Abhijith, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9366/2018, disposed on 10.01.2019. The learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the position that the issue stands covered by the aforesaid judgment, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"7. In substance, what is alleged in the complaint is that two persons namely, Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin had made certain
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR uncharitable comments against Police officers. When the allegations levelled in the complaint are examined in the light of language employed in Section 353 of IPC, it is clear that complaint does not contain any allegation of assault or use of criminal force to a public servant with intent to prevent him from discharging his duty. It is unfortunate that Police officers have resorted to registering a complaint without there being any ingredients attributable to Section 353 of IPC. In Manik Taneja, the Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
"10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which read 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
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
"A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent that second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
8. In the circumstances, it leaves no doubt that the allegations in the complaint do not conform to the attributes and ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Resultantly, this petition merits
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR consideration and is accordingly allowed. FIR No.59/2018 registered in Vidhana Soudha Police station pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and all further proceedings thereon are quashed."
4. A perusal at the complaint and also the summary of charge sheet does not disclose that the petitioner has neither caused injury to the person or property of the complainant nor committed criminal intimidation attributable to Section 506 of the IPC.
5. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court supra, which covers the case at hand on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned proceedings pending in C.C.No.5258/2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stands quashed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed."
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record which indicate that apart from the fact that no ingredients
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR attracting Section 353 had been made out, in the absence of necessary permission from the Magistrate in relation to the remaining non- cognizable offences as mandated under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
11. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in
C.C.No.141/2023 pending before Principal
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, arising out of FIR in Crime No.61/2021 registered by respondent-Police, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
9. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in K.Dhananjay's case, I deem it just and appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings against all petitioners-accused persons except petitioner No.5/accused No.5.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24807 CRL.P No. 3314 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.85/2022 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, Chikmagalur, arising out of FIR in Crime No.188/2019 registered by the respondent No.1 -Police, qua the petitioners, except petitioner No.5 /accused No.5 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RU, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5