Karnataka High Court
L. R. Shivarame Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5240 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
L.R.SHIVARAME GOWDA
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
'SUDHA MANSION',
NO.42, 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
BANAGIRI HILLS, BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
NAGAMANGALA TOWN
POLICE STATION,
MANDYA, REP. BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. MAYASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
FLYING SQUAD, KASABA HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA,
MANDYA LOKASABHA CONSTITUENCY,
MANDYA - 571 432. ... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.60/2020 REGISTERED BY THE NAGAMANGALA TOWN P.S.,
MANDYA DISTRICT IN CR.NO.47/2019 DATED 03.04.2019 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/.S 125 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
NAGAMANGALA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2020 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala arising out of Crime No.47 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Shri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
3A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent on 3.04.2019 alleging that in the Lok Sabha elections held in the year 2019 he was appointed as a flying squad and he received a complaint from the control room of the Deputy Commissioner's office by one Kabbalaiah, Secretary of the Mandya District Congress complaining that petitioner was canvassing in favour of one Nikhil Kumaraswamy, candidate for JD(S) party on communal lines and on the allegation that the petitioner was spreading communal disharmony has sought legal action to be taken against the petitioner. Based upon this complaint FIR came to be registered on 31-03-2019 for offences punishable under Section 125 of the Act. Pursuant to registration of FIR proceedings were taken up in C.C.No.60 of 2020. It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court calling in question registration and continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2020.
4. The case at hand being for offence punishable under Section 125 of the Act, both the learned counsel appearing for 4 the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, would in unison, submit and admit that the issue in the petition stands covered by plethora of judgments rendered by Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court, five of which are placed on record in the cases of:
(i) PRABHAKAR BHAT KALADKA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - W.P.No.24404 of 2019.
(ii) SHIVANAGOUDA NAYAK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Crl.P.No.200888 of 2019.
(iii) PRATHAP SIMHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - Crl.P.No.7259 of 2014.
(iv) PRAKASH KHANDRE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -Crl.P.No. 200359 of 2014
(v) MADHAVRAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
Crl.P.No. 200031 of 2015.
Out of the above, I deem it appropriate to quote CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 20088 OF 2019 disposed of on 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 wherein this Court interpreting Section 125 of the Act has held as follows:
"04. On the basis of such complaint respondent - police registered the FIR in crime No.52/2019 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 5 125 of Representation of People Act 1951 (for short 'R.P. Act') and Section 153 (A) IPC. After conducting the investigation, respondent - police have chargesheeted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 125 of R.P. Act, alleging that petitioner abused the Chief Minister Sri H. D. Kumarswamy employing word "Gandu" (impotent) which is unconstitutional word and degradable.
05. Section 125 R.P. Act reads as follows:-
125. Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election.- Any person who in connection with an election under this Act promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of the citizens of India shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
06. Thus it is clear that Section 125 of the R.P. Act attracted only if the speech was intended to promote enmity based on religion, race, caste, community or language. The abusive word was against a particular individual. Apparently allegations made did not constitute the offence under Section 125 the R.P. Act.
07. Sri Maqbool Ahamed, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the allegations made against the petitioner may constitute the offence under Section 504 IPC.
08. Section 504 Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.- Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that 6 such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
09. To apply Section 504 IPC, the word employed by accused shall cause insult and annoyance to the abused individual and provocate him to commit any offence. The insult, annoyance are mental state of the person abused. The person who was subjected to the alleged abuse did not come before the state complaining insult or annoyance or provocation by such act. The complainant was not even eyewitness to the incident. The complaint is filed on the basis of alleged complaint made by certain political parties before Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the allegations do not even constitute the offence under Section 504 IPC. The idea that offence constitutes offence under Section 504 IPC is farfetched.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others V/s Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330, laid down the following guidelines regarding quashing of the proceedings.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the 7 assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution / complainant; and / or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution / complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the Court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.PC. such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious Court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. The discussion made above show that, the impugned proceedings would not end in the conviction. This case is squarely covered by Rajiv Thapar's case. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the petition is allowed."
8In the light of the issue being covered by the aforesaid judgment, a deeper delve into the matter has become unnecessary.
5. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate bench (supra), I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2020 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala stand quashed.
I.A.No.1/2021 is disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ