Karnataka High Court
Baswaraj Chamareddy vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 14 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200727/2021
BETWEEN:
BASWARAJ CHAMAREDDY S/O SHIVPUTRA
AGED: 34 YEARS, OCC: ASST. ACCOUNTANT
NEKRTC DIVISION OFFICE, BIDAR
R/O CHITGUPPA TQ.CHITGUPPA
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANURE ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
POLICE INSPECTOR, NEW TOWN,
BIDAR, THROUGH REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, KALABURGI-585103.
2. SRI. BASWANTAPPA B.M.
ACCOUNT OFFICER, NEKRTC
BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.SUDHIRSINGH R VILAPUR ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT & FIR, CRIME No.41/2021 AT NEW TOWN
2
POLICE STATION BIDAR PUNISHABLE U./S 166, 505,
(1)(C) 109, IPC PENDING BEFORE 2 ND ADDL. SR. CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC AT BIDAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that one Basavantappa, Accountants Officer of NEKSRTC, Bidar vide his complaint dated 14.04.2021 gave the complaint to the police stating that employees union gave a call for indefinite strike and this petitioner instigated other staff not to attend the duty and sent a video message through whatsapp in support of the said strike. Along with the complaint, a CD was enclosed regarding recording of the instigation given by this petitioner in support of the said strike and the said strike is causing inconvenience to the general public. Based on the complaint, the police have 3 registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 166, 505(1)(c) of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that before calling the strike, the representation was given to the Managing Director pertaining to indefinite strike. The counsel would submit that the contents of the complaint and also the conversation made in the CD does not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 505(1)(c) of IPC. The strike call was given and in support of the said strike call that too for implementation of 6th pay commission, protest was made. The counsel submits that the Government though agreed to implement the 6 th pay commission, the same has not been implemented and hence, the very support made to the strike does not attract the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 505(1)(c) of IPC and abetment of committing any offence and the very initiation of the criminal prosecution against 4 him who is an Assistant Accountant at NEKRTC division is an abuse of process.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that the conversation which has been placed before the Court is not the actual conversation and video transcription is not in terms of the CD which has been enclosed.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent has placed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2021 that is in respect of adjudication as sought before the Division Bench for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take immediate steps to resolve the issue with regard to protest. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the matter also taken note of the strike which has been called off and opined that the first prayer has already been met.
5
6. In reply to the arguments of respondent No.2 counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he has filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court has given the direction to consider the representation of this petitioner regarding his transfer who has been transferred from Bidar to Hovina Hadagali.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the registration of the case against this petitioner is that he being the Assistant Accountant at NEKRTC Division, Bidar indulged in sending whatsapp message regarding not to attend the duty. As a result, the same has caused inconvenience to the general public. Having taken note of the contents of the complaint as well as the transcription of the CD and also the offence which has been invoked under Section 166 of IPC. Section 166 of IPC discloses that whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or 6 knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Other penal provision invoked is Section 505(1)(c) of IPC. Section 505(1)(c) of IPC discloses that Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
8. Having taken note of the ingredients of Sections 166 and 505(1)(c) and also the contents of the complaint, the only sum and substance of the complaint that the petitioner being the responsible officer sent the whatsapp message in support of the strike. The fact that this petitioner not only involved in the strike call given to the entire State and throughout the State, the strike call was given with regard to the non-implementation of 6 th 7 pay commission and also in this regard, a writ petition (W.P.No.8012/2021) was also filed before the Division Bench and subsequently strike was also called off. When such being the fact and circumstances of the case, the protest was made with regard to the implementation of 6 th pay commission and the same does not attract the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 505(1)(c) of IPC as invoked against the petitioner and also material discloses that he has been transferred from Bidar to Hovina Hadagali and in that connection also the writ petition (W.P.No.201060/2021) also filed and there was a direction to consider the representation. But he has not yet been transferred from Hovina Hadagali to Bidar till date. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, it is not a fit case to continue the proceedings for criminal action against the petitioner when strike call was given and he supported the strike call with regard to the implementation of 6th pay commission and the averments of the complaint does not attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 505(1)(c) of 8 IPC. Hence, it is appropriate to quash the criminal prosecution initiated against this petitioner or otherwise, it amounts to an abuse of process since the ingredients of the offence invoked against this petitioner does not attract by taking note of the allegations made in the complaint.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.41/2021 at New Town Police Station, Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 505(1)(c), 109 of IPC on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar is 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 SAN