Karnataka High Court
Aswath vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676
CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201445/2023
BETWEEN:
ASWATH
S/O. TUKARAM RATHOD,
AGE 30 YEARS,
R/O. STATION THANDA, CHITTAPUR,
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585211.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI
Location: HIGH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF THROUGH CHITTAPUR POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA
TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI -585211.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH -585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.91/2023, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676
CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023
CHITTAPUR POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 36, 37, AND
109 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF
COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN GSC NO.
PO1577230600021/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITTAPUR, TO SECURE THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.91/2023 registered by respondent - Chittapur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 36, 37 and 109 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'K.P. Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below. The petitioner is accused No.3 and respondent is complainant-State.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676 CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023 On 08.07.2023, at 11:45 p.m., the complainant received an information that, at Station Tanda Ganesh Chowk accused Nos.1 and 2 along with other accused have used DJ (loudspeakers) without obtaining any permission from the competent authority, thereby caused disturbance to the public and patients on the occasion of birthday of accused No.3. Hence, complainant made a request to Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur to grant permission to investigate the matter as it is non-cognizance case. Accordingly, on 09.07.2023 the Civil Judge and JMFC Chittapur accorded permission to investigate the matter and to submit the final report. hence, on 09.07.2023 the Investigating Officer seized DJ sound box under panchnama and registered a case against accused persons in Crime No.91/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 36, 37 and 109 of K.P. Act.
4. Taking exception of the same, the petitioner- accused No.3 filed this petition contending that he has been falsely involved in the case due to political rivalry, -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676 CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023 there are no prima facie material against the present petitioner to attract the aforesaid offences; the complainant is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident and without following the proceedings he seized the DJ Box.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State submits that there are prima facie materials against petitioner and others; the Investigating Officer has seized the DJ Box, which shows sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of contents of FIR, it reveals that as per Column No.10 of FIR, on 08.07.2023 at 11:45 p.m., when the PSI was on patrolling duty in Chittapur Town he received information that at Station Tanda, Ganesh Chowk, accused Nos.1 and 2 played DJ music sound for celebration of birthday of accused No.3 in between 6:00 p.m.. and 11:15 p.m. Hence, he visited the spot, but at that time DJ program had over and they were removing -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676 CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023 music systems and the complainant came to know that they have not obtained any permission from the competent authority.
7. On perusal of FIR it appears that the complainant is not an eyewitness and he has not heard any DJ music when he visited the spot. Complainant states that on the information of some unknown persons he visited the spot, but at that time the DJ music program was completed. In the complaint, the complainant has not stated the limits, viz., the sound limit would be 60 decibels (dB) and accused played exceeding 65 (dB) and he has not mentioned the frequency weighing in the measurement of noise and corresponds to frequency response, characteristics of the human ear.
8. Admittedly, the Karnataka Government has banned the use of loud speaker between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., amid a raging over loud speaker. A notification issued by the Government said that a loud speaker on public address system shall not be used except after -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676 CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023 obtaining written permission from the designated Authorities. Whereas in the instant case, none of the local persons complained in writing to the complainant, alleging noise pollution.
9. As per Section 8 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, if the authority is satisfied from the report of an Officer In-charge of a Police Station or other information received by including from the complainant that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance to the public or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions. This Section contemplates the prohibitory order in the case of continuance of music sound or noise.
10. Whereas, in the instant case, the moment complainant visited the spot, the music systems were not playing and the program was completed. In the Seizure Mahazar, the complainant has not specified the decibel -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676 CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023 number permitted or prohibited, but he seized the Sound Box without mentioning any material particulars. On perusal of the material available on record, the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of case, quash the proceedings. This ratio is laid down in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr., vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Anr. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692.
11. Further, on perusal of the FIR it does not disclose any offence of any nature whatsoever. Thus, the FIR registered by respondent deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed.-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7676 CRL.P No. 201445 of 2023 ii. The FIR registered in Crime No. 91/2023 is hereby quashed against accused No.3 only. iii. Insofar as pending I.A., is concerned, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26