Karnataka High Court
K Azeez vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4550
CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6053 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. K AZEEZ
S/O MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO 1-223
VIDYAPURA HOUSE
KABAKA RURAL
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
2. NOWSHAD
S/O NAZEER
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT KEDUVADKA HOUSE
2-78, KABAKA POST AND RURAL
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH
VINUTHA
3. SHAMEER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O UMMAR
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO 3-68
MULE KADU POLYA
KABAKA POST AND RURAL
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
4. MOHAMMED HAREES A R
S/O LATE ADRAMA YANE ABDUL RAHIMAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT 1-87, ADYALU HOUSE
BANTWAL TALUK, KULA
D.K DISTRICT-574 243.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4550
CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
5. ABDUL RAHIMAN A
S/O USMAN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO 2/94, ANAJE HOUSE
KUDIPADI, PUTTUR TALUK
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
6. THOUSEEF
C/O MOHAMMAD SADIK
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 1-296, VIDYAPURA HOUSE
KABAKA POST AND VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
7. SHAMSHUDDIN
S/O MAHMMAD
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT 1-172, VIDYAPURA HOUSE
KABAKA POST AND VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATON
D.K DISTRICT
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KABAKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K DISTRICT-574 220.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4550
CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
IN C.C.NO.141/2023 OF PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, D.K.,
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143, 147, 341, 269, 353,
323, 427, 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SEC.2(A) AND 2(b)
OF KPDLP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR D.K., WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"i) Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.141/2023 of Puttur Town Police Station, D.K., District for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 269, 353, 323, 427, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 2(a) and 2(b) of KPDLP Act pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, which is produced at ANNEXURE-'A', in the above case, in the interests of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned complaint dated 15.08.2021 in order to point out that necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC were missing/absent in the complaint coupled with the fact that the remaining offences are non-cognizable offences, the impugned proceedings without seeking necessary permission under Section 152(2) of Cr.P.C. in relation to the non-cognizable offences deserve to be quashed.
4. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 and this Court in the cases of Athaulla Jokatte and others v. The State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.6314/2022, Sailaja P.V.S. v. The State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.9452/2022 and Shri Vijay Tata v. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.9366/2018.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In Manik Taneja's case supra, the Apex Court held as under:
"8. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
9. In State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal [(1995) 2 SCC 449 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 387] considering the scope of Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR/criminal proceedings, this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 450, para 4) "4. ... The power of quashing an FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised -6- NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 sparingly by the courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the first information report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this Court in various judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] ) but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner."
10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which reads as follows:
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or -7- NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
7. The said judgment was followed by this Court in Vijay Tata's, wherein it held as under:
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 "Heard Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
2. This petition is filed challenging FIR No.59/2018 registered on 13.12.2018 in Vidhana Soudha police station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 & 120B of IPC against petitioner and two others.
3. Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior advocate, adverting to the complaint lodged by one Shri Manjunath.B, Police Inspector, CCB, Bengaluru, pointed out that the contents of complaint are to the effect that Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin held a press conference in Press club in Bengaluru on 12.12.2018 and in the said press conference, they had allegedly made certain uncharitable allegations against Police officers, CCB, who were investigating the offences in respect of a Company called 'Ambident'; and stated that their investigation had facilitated the accused in the said case to obtain bail.
With the said allegations, instant complaint has been lodged alleging offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC in Vidhana Soudha police station. He argued that if the complaint is read in its entirety, it does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. He placed reliance on Manik Taneja and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 another v. State of Karnataka and another1 and submitted that the instant complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
4. Shri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General argued in support of the complaint.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Senior Advocate, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the records.
6. Section 353 of IPC reads as follows:
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." (emphasis supplied)
7. In substance, what is alleged in the complaint is that two persons namely, Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin had made certain uncharitable comments against Police officers. When the 1 (2015) 7 SCC 423
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 allegations levelled in the complaint are examined in the light of language employed in Section 353 of IPC, it is clear that complaint does not contain any allegation of assault or use of criminal force to a public servant with intent to prevent him from discharging his duty. It is unfortunate that Police officers have resorted to registering a complaint without there being any ingredients attributable to Section 353 of IPC. In Manik Taneja, the Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
"10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which read as follows:
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent that second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
8. In the circumstances, it leaves no doubt that the allegations in the complaint do not conform to the attributes and ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and is accordingly allowed. FIR No.59/2018 registered in Vidhana Soudha Police station pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and all further proceedings thereon are quashed.
9. At this stage, Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate contends that since this Court has taken a view that FIR is bad in law and quashed the same, any materials seized during the course of investigation shall be returned. He is right in his contention. In the circumstances, respondents are directed to release any or all articles seized during the course of investigation, forthwith.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
10. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs."
8. Subsequently, under identical circumstances in Athaulla Jokatte's case supra, this Court held as under:
"The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1137/2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 353, 332, 188, 109, 120-B read with Section 14 of the IPC and Sections 2(a) and (b) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, disposed on 18.06.2021. The learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the position that the issue stands covered by the aforesaid judgment,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWS.5 to 8.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.
7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant.
9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.
10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed."
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings pending in C.C.No.1137/2020 before the II JMFC Court, Mangalore, stands quashed qua the petitioners."
9. The said position was reiterated by this Court in Sailaja's case supra, wherein it held as under:
"The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.5258/2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.K.S.Abhijith, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9366/2018, disposed on 10.01.2019. The learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the position that the issue stands covered by the aforesaid judgment, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"7. In substance, what is alleged in the complaint is that two persons namely, Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin had made certain uncharitable comments against Police officers. When the allegations levelled in the complaint are examined in the light of language employed in Section 353 of IPC, it is clear that complaint does not contain any allegation of assault or use of criminal force to a public servant with intent to prevent him from discharging his duty. It is unfortunate that Police officers have resorted to registering a complaint without there being any ingredients attributable to Section 353 of IPC. In Manik Taneja, the Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
"10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which read as follows:
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
"
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent that second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."
8. In the circumstances, it leaves no doubt that the allegations in the complaint do not conform to the attributes and ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and is accordingly allowed. FIR No.59/2018 registered in Vidhana Soudha Police station pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and all further proceedings thereon are quashed."
4. A perusal at the complaint and also the summary of charge sheet does not disclose that the petitioner has neither caused injury to the person or property of the complainant nor committed criminal intimidation attributable to Section 506 of the IPC.
5. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court supra, which covers the case at hand on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550
CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned proceedings pending in
C.C.No.5258/2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stands quashed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed."
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record which indicate that apart from the fact that no ingredients attracting Section 353 had been made out, in the absence of necessary permission from the Magistrate in relation to the remaining non-cognizable offences as mandated under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., I am of the view that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
11. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.141/2023 pending before Principal Senior Civil Judge and
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4550 CRL.P No. 6053 of 2023 JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, arising out of FIR in Crime No.61/2021 registered by respondent-Police, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6