Karnataka High Court
Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.41465/2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED FARAZ
S/O BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.14-88, TALIPADPU,
B.MOODA, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 219.
2. ABDUL SHAFAN
S/O N. MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT 13-188/1, NANDARABETTU,
B.MOODA, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 219.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 219,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME
NO.178/2017 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, OF BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT
AND REMAND APPLICATION DATED 11.8.2017 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 353,
504, 427, 188, 308 R/W 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTION 2[A] OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION
AND LOSS OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES ACT, 1981 IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A & B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
FIR was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 504, 427, 188, 308, 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 alleging that when the prohibition order under Section 144 of Cr.PC was in force, the petitioners - accused Nos.25 and 29 held a procession and tried to assault the police, who were on duty and public by pelting stones resulting in breach of public peace. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the 3 offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC only upon a complaint in writing by the court or by such Authorized Officer of that court and as such, the registration of FIR by the police for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC is one without authority of law.
3. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners having taken out a procession have pelted stones on the police, who were on the duty, and have committed the aforesaid offence and the registration of FIR cannot be faulted.
4. I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC only upon a complaint in writing by the Authorized Officer as prescribed under Section 195 of Cr.PC. Hence, the registration of FIR is contrary to Section 195 of Cr.PC.
6. The next question that arises for consideration is whether FIR stands vitiated only insofar as the offence 4 punishable under Section 188 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the case of State of Karnataka - vs- Hemareddy reported in (1981) 2 SCC 185 has 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 prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
7. A reading of the above judgment makes it clear that the offences forming part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.PC, then it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of the accused for other offences. Therefore, the registration of FIR for the offence punishable under Section 188 and other offences of IPC requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;5
ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.178/2017 registered by the Bantwal Town Police Station, DK District, insofar as it relates to petitioners - accused Nos.25 and 29 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm