Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Ravi Shanbhag vs The Principal Secretary on 24 September, 2018

Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

                            BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

      WRIT PETITION No.10403 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
Ravi Shanbhag
S/o Late Baburao Shanbhagh,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o Sagar City,
Shivamogga District-577 401.               ...PETITIONER

(By Sri. Sateesh Chandra K.V., Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Principal Secretary,
       Home Department
       Represented by State of
       Karnataka,
       Vidhana Soudha,
       Bengaluru-560 001.

2.     The Superintendent of Police,
       Shivamogga District,
       Shivamogga-577 201.

3.     The Deputy Superintendent
       of Police,
       Sagar-577 401.

4.     The Circle Inspector of Police,
       Sagar Town Police,
                                                  WP 10403/2016
                               2


      Sagar-577 401.

5.    The Sub Inspector,
      Town Police,
      Sagar-577401                           ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)


      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and  of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner in
police CR.No.6/2016 and registered before the Prl. Civil
Judge and JMFC., Sagara, Crime No.8/2016, dated
07.01.2016 at Annexure-M, N and O etc.,

     This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group, this day, the Court made the following:


                           ORDER

Both side present.

In this case, the petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorari seeking quashing of FIR said to have been registered against him in respondent-police station Crime No.6/2016 and said to have been registered before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagara in CR.No.8/2016 at Annexures-M, N and O. WP 10403/2016 3

2. The allegation made against the petitioner is of carrying the activity of playing O.C. Matka in a public place on 06.01.2016, for which a complaint against him came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "K.P. Act", for the sake of brevity) and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for the sake of brevity).

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments while filing a memo along with a certified copy of the judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar (hereinafter referred as the 'Court below' for the sake of brevity) in C.C.No.131/2016, submitted that the petitioner-accused has been convicted by the jurisdictional Court for the alleged offences through the said judgment in WP 10403/2016 4 respondent-police station Crime No.6/2016, as such, the present writ petition has become infructuous.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though concedes that the present petitioner-accused has been convicted by learned Magistrate in respondent-police station Crime No.6/2016, which was subsequently taken as CR No.8/2016 by the Court below, however, he submits that the petitioner is a respectable and responsible person in his locality having timber business of his own and also has grown up children pursuing higher education and research studies. However, the police are lodging false and frivolous cases one after the other against him, for which he has sought for a direction initiating disciplinary action on those police personnel, as such, suitable direction may be given in that regard.

5

5. The prayer made in the present writ petition is primarily for quashing of FIR registered against the present petitioner in respondent-Police Station Crime No.6/2016. The other prayer is for a writ of Mandamus seeking direction to respondent No.1 to take disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are said to be bent upon to register the cases against the petitioner.

6. The scope of the present writ petition is mainly to consider whether the petitioner deservs for the relief of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the FIR in respondent-police station Crime No.6/2016. Further only if it is noticed that the FIR registered against him by respondent-police station in Crime No.6/2016 was baseless and was filed only to harass the petitioner, then the question of considering prayer No.3 for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent WP 10403/2016 6 No.1 to take disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 would have arisen.

7. However, in the instant case, admittedly, Crime No.6/2016 of the respondent-police station has proceeded further and has ultimately ended in conviction of the present petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P. Act. Therefore, when the said criminal case has resulted in conviction, which conviction though is said to be challenged by the petitioner before the competent Sessions Court, still as on date the matter remains that the FIR registered by the police in their station Crime No.6/2016 against the petitioner has not proved to be a false FIR and the institution of criminal case has not been proved to be a malicious prosecution. Therefore, when the very writ petition is not maintainable, since the main prayer of quashing the FIR in Crime No.6/2016 WP 10403/2016 7 no more survives for consideration, granting further relief of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to take disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 does not arise, as such, the writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE BMC