Karnataka High Court
Hebsur Rehaman vs State By Hunsur Town Police Station on 20 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:11606
CRL.P No. 5287 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5287 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
HEBSUR REHAMAN
S/O ILIYAS SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT LALBAND STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. VEENA B S
Digitally signed by
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
VEDAVATHI A K GOVT. OFFICIAL GAZETTED,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION OFFICE,
HUNSUR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE C i.e. CHARGE
SHEET DATED 06.08.2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS
ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.4 IN CC NO.582/2019 ARISING
OUT CRIME NO.39/2019 REGISTERED BY THE HUNSUR TOWN
POLICE STATION, HUNSUR, MYSORE PENDING BEFORE THE
HONBLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HUNSUR, MYSURU CITY FOR THE ALLEGED AFFENCES
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:11606
CRL.P No. 5287 of 2022
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 353, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 34 OF
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.582/2019 arising out of Crime No.39/2019 registered by Hunsur Town Police station for the offence punishable under Section 143, 353, 149 of IPC and Section 35 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P. Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2-Veena B.S., the Police registered the FIR on 27.02.2019 the alleged incident occurred on 01.02.2019, i.e., nearly about one month before the registration of the FIR and it is alleged that when the complainant came to Mini Vidhana -3- NC: 2024:KHC:11606 CRL.P No. 5287 of 2022 Soudha, Hunsur Town to attend her official duty, this petitioner along with the others said to be protesting without obtaining any prior permission from the concerned departments and preventing the officials and public to enter into the mini Vidhana Soudha and they obstructed the Government official to discharge the official duty which is punishable under Section 143, 353, 504, 149 of IPC and that on 27.02.2019, the Police registered FIR and after the investigation, they filed the charge sheet, which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegation is that accused No.4 had formed unlawful assembly in front of mini Vidhana Soudha with other accused for the purpose of protesting against the condemnable act of one person named Pooja Shakun Pandey who had celebrated the death of Gandhiji by recreating the act of shooting Gandhiji on the date of his death and further contended that they have not obtained prior permission to hold the protest and in process of protest, they have created obstruction and disturbance in the office work of the public servant.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:11606 CRL.P No. 5287 of 2022
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no case made out under Section 353 of IPC as there is no offence of assaulting the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to deter the public servant from discharging his duty. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioner has either assaulted the respondent No.2 or used criminal force to prevent the respondent No.2 from discharging his official duty. The incident is said to be agitating the death of Gandhi Shanthi Aligarh over U.P. Therefore, the offence under Section 353 of IPC is not made out and there is no articles seized by the Police. There is no evidence against the petitioner regarding allegation of conducting protest and also there are eye witnesses to the incident who are the officials as well as the driver of the complainant given statement before the Police stating that the petitioner and others came to the Taluk Office and protested, such being the case, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is not sustainable.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the petition.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:11606 CRL.P No. 5287 of 2022
7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the complaint, where the alleged incident occurred on 01.02.2019 but the FIR was registered on 27.02.2019. The complaint reveals that on 1.2.2019, when the complainant came to Mini Vidhana Soudha, Hunsur for discharge of her official duty, this petitioner along with others said to be protested in front of mini Vidhana Soudha and obstructed from entering into the mini Vidhana Soudha and thereby, prevented the Authority from discharging the official duty. Hence, they committed the alleged offence under Section 353 of IPC. Though learned counsel submits that there was no criminal force as defined under section 350 IPC or an assault as defined under section 351 IPC to attract above offence and further submits that, except allegation of conducting protest, there is no CCTV footage. The police during the investigation examined as many as five eye- witnesses apart from the complainant and other witnesses, who have corroborated the statement of the complainant and one among them is the driver of the complainant, who has stated that, he learnt that, accused persons formed a group and were protesting in front of the entrance gate of Mini Vidhana Soudha and thereby obstructing entry of officials into the office and on -6- NC: 2024:KHC:11606 CRL.P No. 5287 of 2022 knowing the said fact, the complainant went there and on her enquiry, it was learnt that, SDPI was holding protest without obtaining prior permission of any concerned departments and thereby obstructed officials from entering the office and discharging their official duties.
8. The petitioner and other accused also said to have abused in filthy language and protested. The police registered FIR under Section 353 of IPC for obstructing the public servant and showing the criminal force. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no offence under Section 353 of IPC is made out. If at all no evidence is available regarding commission of offence during trial, accused persons may seek discharge but have not made out a case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view, the petition deserved to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:SK