Karnataka High Court
Ramappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200606/2021
BETWEEN:
1. RAMAPPA S/O MUKAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MUSTURU, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
2. REDDAPPA S/O BHIMRAYA
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GEJJABHAVI
TQ. DEVADURGA
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
3. SHIVAPPA S/O YANKAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O PALAKANAMARADI,
TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
4. HANUMANTAPPA S/O MALLAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KAKARGAL, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
5. RAMANNA S/O NARASAPPA NAYAK
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O D. KARADIGUDDA
TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
2
6. GANGADHAR S/O CHANNABASAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MUSTURU, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
7. RAJSHEKHAR S/O A. VENKATESH
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ARAKERA, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
8. ADANAGOUDA
S/O VENKANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BUNKALDODDI,
TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
9. RANGAPPA S/O HANUMAYYA GOSAL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O DEVADURGA, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
10. SHRANAPPAGOUDA
S/O SHANKARGOUDA
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GABBUR , TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
11. SYED BABAJANI S/O SYED YUSUF
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MASARAKAL , TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
12. BHIMANGOUDA S/O MALLANAGOUDA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NAGADADINNI, TQ. DEVADURGA
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
13. BHIMAREDDI S/O BUSSAPPA NAYAK
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MALADAKAL, TQ. DEVADURGA,
3
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
14. GOVINDRAJ NAYAK
S/O YALLAYYA CHIKKAGUDDA
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KOTTADODDI, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584111
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL &
SRI PUNITH MARKAL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GABBUR POLICE STATION
(REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585106)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 04.02.2020 FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE
OFFENCES AND ALSO QUASH THE INITIATION OF
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.69/2020 (CRIME NO.75/2019) FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 341 R/W
SECTION 149 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY GABBUR POLICE
STATION, TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR, WHICH IS NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DEVADURGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga, taking cognizance of the offences and also quash the initiation of proceedings in C.C.No.69/2020 (Crime No.75/2019) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, r/w Section 149 of IPC, registered by Gabbur Police Station, Tq. Devadurga, Dist. Raichur, which is now pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the allegation is made against the petitioners that on 31.10.2019, the petitioners filed application before the respondent-Police seeking permission to conduct padayatra from Musturu village to Arakera village on the issue of development of 5 road and with regard to providing basic amenities. The complainant suggested the petitioners not to block the road since it is against law. Inspite of such advise, the petitioners continued protest and hence, he went and gave complaint. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against them.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet do not attract the offence under Section 147 of IPC and also under Section 341 of IPC. The learned Magistrate without applying judicious mind took cognizance and issued process. The learned counsel also submits that the learned Magistrate failed to take note of stereotype of statement of witnesses who are also official witnesses. 6
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the complaint averments is specific that the petitioners requested the complainant to permit them to conduct padayatra, but the complainant instructed not to protest and the same is against the rules and regulations. Inspite of the same, the petitioners blocked the road from 10.30 a.m., to 11.30 a.m. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
6. Having considered the material on record, the very complaint discloses that the petitioners had approached the police and requested the complainant to permit them to hold protest, but it was advised not to do the same and inspite of such advise, the petitioners held protest. The cause of conduct of protest was for development of road and for providing infrastructures to the village and the same does not constitute an unlawful assembly. The penal provisions of Section 143, 147, 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC are invoked against the petitioners. 7 No doubt, they have to seek permission but the fact that they sought permission is also not in dispute. The complaint itself discloses that they had sought permission, but the permission was not given. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case and statement of the witnesses do not disclose any untoward and illegal incident being taken place in the protest and it is only protest by padayatra for public cause for a particular period, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings.
7. In view of the observations made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga, taking cognizance and issuing process and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.69/2020 (Crime No.75/2019 of Gabbur Police Station) on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga, Raichur District, for the 8 offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*