Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar S/O Vithal Bankapur vs The Police Sub Inspector on 20 February, 2019
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102193/2018
BETWEEN:
1. GANGADHAR S/O VITHAL BANKAPURE,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSAINESS,
R/AT: ANKALI TALUQ, CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. PARASHURAM S/O VITHAL BANKAPURE,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSAINESS,
R/AT: ANKALI TALUQ, CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GOURISHANKAR H MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE,
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
ANAKLI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
DHARWAD.
2. MR.AKHIL S/O IMMAM MULLA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: ANKALI TALUQ, CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1,
R2-SERVED)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH FIR NO.170/2016 DATED:
11.11.2016 REGISTERED WITH THE ANKALI POLICE STATION
AS SAME WAS THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN
C.C.NO.1275/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECITONS 153,
504, 505(2), 295-A R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT CHIKODI AND
SET-ASIDE ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFORE (AT
ANNEXURE A) INCLUDING THE CHARGE-SHEET (AT
ANNEXURE-B).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioners' counsel and also the learned HCGP.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that one Akhil Immam Mulla has lodged the complaint alleging that on 11.11.2016 on his social network facebook has drawn picture of Tippu Sultan and Ex-Chief Minister of Karnataka in an indecent manner with an intention to insult the communal harmony in the society. Accused 3 Nos.1 and 2 in their account have created and managed to spread over in the social media and they are responsible for spreading the above morphed photos, which resulted in communal disharmony and therefore, he has sought for taking necessary action against the accused persons by filing a false and frivolous complaint under Sections 153, 504, 505(2), 295-A and Section 34 of IPC for inter alia acts intended to outrage religious feelings, wrongful restraint, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation. Thereafter, the police taken the petitioners to the police station based on the fabricated and false complaint and registered the case against the petitioners and they were arrested and kept in judicial custody for three days and the very initiation of the proceedings against these petitioners is bad in law.
3. The petitioners in the bail petition have contended that no sanction is obtained from the State Government or the Central Government in order to 4 prosecute these petitioners. The other contention that Section 196(1) of the Code prescribes that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under Section 295- A of IPC without the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government is given and without the sanction, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and hence the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners is with malafides and made with sole intention to harass the petitioners and also on perusal of the complaint and FIR it shows that ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 153, 504, 505(2), 295-A read with Section 34 of IPC are neither made out nor stated and the very complaint is false, fabricated and lodged with a sole intention to harass the petitioners and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
4. The petitioners' counsel in his argument, he contends that no sanction is obtained in order to initiate 5 the proceedings against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC and on perusal of the charge sheet, the offences invoked against the petitioners are under Sections 153, 504, 505(2), 295-A read with Section 34 of IPC and on perusal of the column No.17 of the charge sheet an allegation is made against the petitioner that on 11.11.2016 the accused Nos.1 and 2 in their mobile intentionally in order to create communal disharmony and to commit the riot and to breach of peace, developed the photos of Tippu Sultan and then the photo of the Former Chief-Minister resembling each other in order to cause insult to the Muslim Community and hence the said offences are invoked against the petitioners.
5. The main contention of the petitioners is that in order to invoke Section 295-A of IPC, the prosecution ought to have obtained the sanction under 6 Section 196 of Cr.P.C. and on perusal of Section 196-A of Cr.P.C., it is clear that in order to take the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 195-A, it is specific that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter-VI or under Section 153-A of IPC for the offence punishable under Section 295-A or Sub-section (1) of Section 505 of IPC and hence having considered that there is a bar under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. to invoke Section 295-A of IPC against the petitioners, there must be a sanction from the Central Government or the State Government and while filing the charge sheet, the prosecution did not obtained any sanction either from the State Government or the Central Government and hence the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 295-A of IPC is bad in law and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioners insofar as 7 to the offence under Section 295-A of IPC is liable to be quashed and not in respect of the other offences.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part. Taking the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 295-A of IPC without the sanction is bad in law and hence the same is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sh