Karnataka High Court
Sri Imran Pasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31160
CRL.P No. 4389 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4389 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI IMRAN PASHA
S/O ARIF PASHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.45/2, 13TH CROSS
PADARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE-560026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. L. CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JJ NAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY SPP
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. YOGESH
MEDICAL OFFICER
CHAMARAJPET ZONE
BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE-560018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S RAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31160
CRL.P No. 4389 of 2022
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.14655/2020 FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.14655/2020
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
143, 188, 270, 271, 353 OF IPC ARISING OUT CRIME
NO.85/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ACMM
COURT, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 4 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 270, 271, 353 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.5.2020, one Imran Pasha was infected with Covid-19. In this regard, the complainant was informed to admit him to hospital. When the complainant went to the spot along with medical staff to shift him to Victoria Hospital, the accused did not cooperate, and made the complainant wait. At this juncture, about 50 persons gathered. The said disease spread to others. Hence, as per the government order, a swift action was taken.
3. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition.
4. Sri V Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would make the following submissions:
-3-NC: 2023:KHC:31160 CRL.P No. 4389 of 2022
a) In the absence of any use criminal force to restrain the complainant and other personnel staff from proceeding further, the continuation of criminal proceeding for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is impermissible.
b) In the absence of any material that the petitioners herein were tested with Covid-19, the continuation of criminal proceeding under Section 270 of IPC is also impermissible.
c) Mere an unlawful assembly without intention to commit the offence does not constitute the offence under Section 143 of IPC.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submits that the charge sheet material discloses that the petitioners, who were forming an unlawful assembly by restraining the public servant from discharging their official duties, have committed the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant any interference.
6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the absence of any material that the Petitioners used criminal force or assaulted the public servants restraining -4- NC: 2023:KHC:31160 CRL.P No. 4389 of 2022 them from discharging their duties does, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 353 of IPC.
8. To constitute the offence under Section 270 of IPC, a person must have acted negligently, who has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. In the instant case, the charge sheet does not contain any material that these petitioners were tested Covid-19 so as to infect any disease dangerous to life. Therefore the essential elements to constitute the offence under Section 270 of IPC is conspicuously absent.
9. Section 268 defines the term `public nuisance' and specifies that a person is guilty of a public nuisance, who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity.
10. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the petitioners herein committed any act or omitted to do any act, which resulted in causing any injury, danger, or annoyance to the public.
11. Therefore, in the absence of any essential elements so as to constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners herein, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
-5-NC: 2023:KHC:31160 CRL.P No. 4389 of 2022 ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The criminal proceeding in CC No.14655/2020 pending on the file of the learned XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM