Karnataka High Court
Prashantha Rai vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3988/2020
BETWEEN:
1. PRASHANTHA RAI
S/O VISHWANATH RAI N
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.1-124 MARUVANJA
MUPPERIA SULLIA TALUK D K-574 212.
2. MR SUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O MADIGA
R/AT DOOR NO.122 MURULYA
KAPUTHADKA HOUSE
SULLIA D K -574 328
3. MR PRADEEPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O PODIYA
R/AT PUNEERI HOUSE
BALUGODU VILLAGE D K -574 218. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BELLARE POLICE STATION SULLIA
2
DAKSHINA KANNDA DISTRICT-PIN574 212.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SPP. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY RESPONDENT POLICE AND PENDING NOW ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SULLIA, D.K. IN CR.NO.30/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 505(2) OF IPC PRODUCED AT
DOCUMENT No.1 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the registration of the case in Crime No.30/2020 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 505(2) of IPC.
3
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the first petitioner is the Taluk President of Tulunadu Rakshna Vedike (R) and the Reporter of Ambika Prakasha, a Kannada Monthly and he is also the State President of Anti Corruption & Crime Control Committee. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are agricultural laborers and all are the permanent residents of the respective places shown in the cause title. The allegations against these petitioners are that during the lockdown, inspite of having shown the medical bills, the police constable Sri. Balakrishna K.M. had demanded Rs.1,000/- and a local Cock (Chicken), and the petitioners have recorded the video of the same and circulated in social media. Hence, the police have registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the ingredients of offence under Section 505(2) of IPC does not attract having taken note of the contents of the complaint. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the proviso of Section 505(2) of IPC, which reads as follows:-
4
"(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.- Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the complaint averment is specific and it attracts the penal provision invoked against them.
6. Having perused the contents of the complaint as per document No.2 and also the complaint dated 20.04.2020, there is an allegation of demanding a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the petitioners and also the local Cock (Chicken) and the same was telecasted. The offence invoked under Section 505(2) of IPC is with regard to the statements creating or promoting enmity, 5 hatred or ill-will between classes, particularly, promoting the same on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
7. Having perused the contents of complaint and the offence invoked under Section 505 (2) of IPC, it is manifestly clear that the ingredients of Section 505(2) of IPC does not attract to the case on hand. Hence, I am of the opinion that initiation of the case against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC is nothing but an abuse of process of law and leads to miscarriage of justice. It is an appropriate case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.6
(ii) The initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.30/2020 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PYR