Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chanukya R vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20508
CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11203 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANUKYA R.,
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
PROFESSION: ADVOCATE
RESIDING AT NO.36
2ND MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
NANDINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 096.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAGAR G.NAHAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH MALLESWARAM POLICE STATION
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BENGALURU - 01.
2. SUSHMA GODBALE
AGED MAJOR
PU EDUCATION BOARD
18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20508
CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 055.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.26487/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 32nd
ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341
R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.26487 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 341 r/w Section 149 of the IPC pending before the 32nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sagar G Nahar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
It transpires that in the month of March 2015 the Pre-
University Board Examination was conducted and its results were announced on 18-05-2015. The petitioner who was then a student of law seeks to protest against the alleged wrong results that were announced by the Board on 18-05-2015.
Therefore, the petitioner along with parents of the students who had grievance on the announcement of the alleged wrong results staged a protest before the Pre-University Board, Malleshwaram in connection with the aforesaid discrepancy. On the ground that the petitioner and others have wrongfully restrained the officers who were working in the Board, crime came to be registered against the members of the ABVP and NSUI, one of which was against the petitioner on 21-05-2015, which forms the complaint and the complaint becomes a crime in crime No.129 of 2015 for the afore-quoted offences. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against the petitioner and others on 29-10-2015 for the very offences that were alleged at the time when crime was registered.-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022
4. Long after the commencement of the trial, it transpires that the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for inclusion of a charge of Sections 448 and 353 of the IPC before the concerned Court on the ground that the petitioner and others have come in the way of the public functionaries to function which would become an offence under the said sections of the IPC.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it was a peaceful protest before the Pre-University Board at Malleswaram, along with the parents who had the grievances with regard to their children having secured certain marks which according to them were incorrect. It was demanding correction of the marks, the parents and the petitioner had staged such protest. There was no untoward incident that has happened on the date of protest is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel would further amplify his submissions to contend that the ingredients of Section 149 or 341 of the IPC are not met with, in the case at hand. The petitioner has not formed an unlawful assembly or involved in an unlawful act -5- NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022 much less not wrongfully restrained any person working in the said offence. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings.
6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner was the President of the National Students Union of India and he had indulged in all those acts alleged against him. Therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. He would submit that in view of the aforesaid serious disputed questions of fact, this Court should not interfere with the impugned proceedings.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue that triggers registration of crime is as afore-narrated. The crime is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w 34 of the IPC. The complaint is made on -6- NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022 21-5-2015 by the Director of Pre-University Board and it reads as follows:
"¸ÀASÉå:¦AiÀÄÄ- /¥ÀjÃPÉë/2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21-5-2015 oÁuÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀįÉèñÀégÀA DgÀPÀëPÀ oÁuÉ ªÀįÉèñÀégÀA ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉà «µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÉ ¥Àæw¨sÀl£É £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ
- - -
¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-5-2015gÀAzÀÄ 2015gÀ ªÀiÁað£À°è £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁzÀ ¢éwÃAiÀÄ ¦AiÀÄĹ ªÁ¶ðPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£À£ÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ CAvÀeÁð®zÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀn¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAvÉAiÉÄà PÉ®ªÀÅ SÁ¸ÀV CAvÀeÁð®ªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæwªÀµÀðzÀAvÉ F ªÀµÀðªÀÇ ¥ÀæPÀlUÉÆAqÀ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©vÀÛj¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, PÉ®ªÀÅ SÁ¸Àw CAvÀeÁð®zÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀzÉÆõÀUÀ½AzÀ PÀÆrgÀĪÀ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ §AzÀ zÀÆj£À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¥ÉÆðøï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉʧgïPÉæöʪÀiï «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
2015gÀ ªÀiÁað ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ¥sÀ°vÁA±À ¥ÀæPÀlUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À°è ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀzÀ°è GAmÁVgÀĪÀ UÉÆAzÀ®UÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀªÀiÁ¯ÉÆÃZÀ£É £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:20-5-2015gÀAzÀÄ CT® ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ «zÁåyð ¥ÀjµÀvïÛ£À (ABVP) ¸ÀAWÀl£ÉAiÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀðgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-5-2015gÀAzÀÄ £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ¸ÀÆÖqÉAmï AiÀÄƤAiÀÄ£ï D¥sï EArAiÀiÁ (NSUI) £À ¸ÀAWÀl£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 jAzÀ 20 d£À PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀðgÀÄ MlÄÖUÀÆr ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ WÉÆõÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆUÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÉÆA©ªÀiÁr «zÁåyð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀgÀ°è E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À UÉÆAzÀ®ªÀ£ÀÄß GAlĪÀiÁr ªÁvÁªÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ®Ä¶vÀUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀjAzÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ½UÉ zsÀPÉÌ GAlĪÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAWÀl£ÉUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃjzÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ ¸À»/-
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ."
(Emphasis added) -7- NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022 The allegation is that, about 15-20 members of the ABVP and NSUI staged a protest inside the compound of the Board raising slogans against the Board and therefore they had indulged themselves in wrongfully restraining the officers of the Board from moving out of the premises. The police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.7 reads as follows:
"¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-05-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¢éÃwAiÀiÁ ¦AiÀÄÄ ¥À°vÁA±À ¥ÀæPlªÁVzÀÄÝ ¥À°vÁA±ÀzÀ°è CAvÀeÁð®zÀ°è GAmÁVzÀÝ UÉÆAzÀ®PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 20-05-2015 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ 21-05-2015 gÀAzÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 10£Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ CPÀæªÀÄ PÀÆl ¸ÉÃj WÉÆõÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆUÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉzÀÄ zÉÆA© ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëzÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A ¥ÀæPÁgÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ."
(Emphasis added) The allegation against the petitioner is that of wrongful restraint as obtaining under Section 341 of the IPC. For an offence to become punishable under Section 341 of the IPC what is necessary to be present are the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC. Section 339 of the IPC reads as follows:
"339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a -8- NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022 right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
Section 339 mandates that the restraint which is wrongful should be to such an extent that no person can even move out if he is to do so in any direction. The wrongful restraint cannot be so loosely laid against the petitioner or others, who had only staged a protest before the Pre-University Board for the purpose of correction of their results.
9. The Apex Court in the case of KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA V. MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI1 has considered the purport of ingredients of Section 339 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC for wrongful restraint. The Apex Court holds as follows:
"11. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the statement made by the first respondent that Accused 1 to 5 were managing the affairs of the Company and had instigated Accused 6 to construct the road must be viewed. It is one thing to say that the Company had asked Accused 6 to make construction but only because Accused 1 to 5 were its Directors, the same, in our 1 (2009)6 SCC 475 -9- NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022 opinion, would not be sufficient to fasten any criminal liability on them for commission of an offence under Section 341 IPC or otherwise.
12. "Wrongful restraint" has been defined under Section 339 IPC in the following words:
"339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are:
(1) Accused obstructs voluntarily;
(2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction;
(3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction.
13. Section 341 IPC provides that:
"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
14. The word "voluntary" is significant. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction."
A perusal at the complaint or summary of the charge sheet would not indicate an iota of ingredient present in the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022 case at hand as is explained by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, further proceeding qua the offence under Section 341 of the IPC cannot be permitted to be continued. Insofar as other offences are concerned, the ingredients as found in Section 141 of the IPC should be present for an offence to become punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of the IPC i.e., for an unlawful assembly to be held to be unlawful there should be common object of the persons of the assembly in using criminal force or criminal tresspass to perform a particular act. A perusal at the complaint and the charge sheet, again would not indicate any ingredient of Section 141 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Sections 143 and 147 of the IPC.
10. In the light of the preceding analysis, if further proceedings are continued against the petitioners, it would degenerate into harassment and become abuse of the process of law and eventually result in miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20508 CRL.P No. 11203 of 2022
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.26487 of 2015 pending on the file of 32nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed lock, stock and barrel.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80