Karnataka High Court
Mr Satish vs State Of Karnataka By on 8 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.6880 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Mr. Satish
S/o Jaya Poojary
Aged 45 years
Todankila Mane
Banang ady Post
Kallamandkuru Grama
Mood abid ri Taluku
Dakshina Kannad a-574227.
...Petitioner
(By Sri P.P. Hegde, Senior Ad vocate for
Sri Venkatesh Somareddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
Secretary of Ministry
of Home Affairs
Vidhana Soudha
Beng aluru-560001.
2. Sub Inspector of Police
Moodubid ri Police Station
Moddubid ri Taluk
Dakshina Kannad a-574227.
3. Mr. B. Ug app a Mulya,
Major
Panchayath Development Officer
Kallamandkur Grama Panchayath
:: 2 ::
Dakshina Kannad a District
Pin-574227.
...Respondents
(By Sri B.J. Rohith, HCGP for R1 and R2
Sri K. Anand arama, Advocate for R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of
CR.P.C, praying to quash the first information report
in Crime No.95/2020 of the Moodbidri Police Station
pend ing on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and
JMFC Court Moodabidre, vide Annexure-D.
This Writ Petition having b een heard & reserved
on 29.03.2022, coming on for pronouncement this
day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs quashing the First Information Report in crime No.95/2020 of the Moodbidri Police Station pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court Moodabidre, vide Annexure - D. :: 3 ::
2. Issue appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner.
3. Issue appropriate writ or directions directing the respondent No.1 to hold enquiry regarding the illegalities and lapses in registration of criminal case and take appropriate actions against respondent-2/police official and respondent No.3 responsible for illegal registration of the FIR.
4. Issue appropriate writ or direction to the Government of Karnataka/ respondent No.1 directing them to upload all the First Information Reports within one hour of the registration of FIR, in the official website of the concerned police stations and also on the concerned police commissionerate/Office of the Superintendent Police of the concerned District.
5. Issue appropriate writs or directions to the respondent No.1, submit :: 4 ::
compliance report regarding the steps taken to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Youth Bar Association of India V/s. Union of India and Another reported in [(2016) 9 SCC 473]; [(2016) 3 SCC/Cri) 691: 2016 SCC Online SC 914 vide Annexure - F regarding the uploading of the FIR in the official website and respondent No.1 may also be directed to publish the web portals of all the police stations of the state and commissionerate/ District headquarter wherein the First Information Reports would be uploaded".
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.P.Hegde submitted that he would not press the reliefs 2 and 3.
3. At the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent police registered an FIR against the petitioner in Cr.No.95/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 353, 506 and 507 of :: 5 ::
IPC. The petitioner is a member of Kallamandkuru Gram Panchayat. He is also a member of Kallamandkuru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha. He claims to be a public spirited person involved in various social activities. It is stated in the writ petition that on the onslaught of Covid-19, he involved himself in identifying the poor and the destitute, and supplying to them the essential commodities. He noticed that the PDO of the Panchayat, i.e., respondent No.3 was negligent in discharging his duties in taking effective steps for containing the spread of Covid-19. Therefore he espoused the cause of public by raising an objection in regard to the inefficiency of the third respondent in discharging his duties. He circulated a message through whatsapp in this regard. Then he started receiving phone calls from respondent No.3. The petitioner tried to obtain certain information under RTI, which would have exposed the malpractices and corrupt methods adopted by :: 6 ::
respondent No.3 in discharging the public duty. This being the background, on 10 t h April, 2020 the petitioner came to know that an FIR had been registered against him in Cr.No.95/2020 at Moodbidre Police Station on the allegation that he had circulated a post on social media against respondent No.3. The petitioner stated that third respondent being a public servant influenced the police to register FIR for non bailable offences even though he had not committed any offence. Therefore the petitioner has filed this writ petition for above mentioned reliefs.
4. I heard Sri. P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.J.Rohith, learned Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Anandarama, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
5. It was the argument of Sri. P.P.Hegde that the second respondent police yielded to third :: 7 ::
respondent for registering an FIR for the offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 IPC. Elaborating the argument, he submitted that if the information posted by the petitioner on social media as per Annexure 'B' is read, it may be noticed that the petitioner just tried to bring awareness among the people during Covid-19 period that the third respondent being the Panchayat Development Officer had neglected his duty. The Government instructed all the concerned officials as to the steps to be taken for effectively containing the spread of Covid-19 and the tests to be conducted for detecting Covid-19. In the information that he posted on social media, there is no material that the petitioner ever put a threat to third respondent or used criminal force while he was discharging his official duty as a public servant. The essential ingredient of section 353 is committing assault or using criminal force while a public servant was discharging his official duty in :: 8 ::
order to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant. He submitted that the terms, 'criminal force' and 'assault' found in section 353 IPC take the meanings ascribed to them in sections 350 and 351 respectively and therefore the offence under section 353 is not constituted. There are no ingredients for invoking the offences under sections 506 and 507 IPC. The first information given by third respondent to the police does not disclose that any one of the above offences is attracted. If the petitioner circulated some information on social media in the interest of public, it does not amount to committing any offence. Registration of FIR is nothing but abuse of process of court and law and it is frivolous also. Hence it needs to be quashed.
5.1. Another point of argument of Sri P.P.Hegde was that the petitioner, after coming to know that an FIR had been registered against him, :: 9 ::
was not able to get a copy of it. He searched the official website of the police department to ascertain whether FIR had been registered against him. He found that FIR was not uploaded in the portal of the police department. Therefore respondents 1 and 2 violated the clear direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and Another [(2016) 9 SCC 473]. He pleaded for giving directions to the first respondent for uploading the FIR on the official website of the District Superintendent of Police so that the persons who are involved in the FIR can avail legal assistance immediately in order to safeguard their personal liberty.
6. Sri B.J.Rohith, learned Government Pleader, submits that the contents of the report made by the third respondent clearly disclose commission of a cognizable offence punishable :: 10 ::
under section 353 of IPC. Though the offences under sections 506 and 507 are non-cognizable, the offence under section 353 is cognizable. FIR had to be registered for that reason. Investigation is in progress and therefore FIR cannot be quashed.
6.1. In regard to uploading of the FIR in the official website of the police department, it is submitted that already FIRs were being uploaded.
In addition, in every police station website address is being displayed. There is no need to issue one more direction.
7. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that Annexure-R9 produced along with statement of objections was another complaint registered against the petitioner. This complaint has been suppressed intentionally. If the FIR is perused, it becomes very clear that essential ingredients of using criminal force and committing :: 11 ::
assault for putting threat to respondent No.3 who is a public servant, is very much present. Actual use of criminal force is not required, just a gesture is sufficient to invoke the offence under section 353 IPC. The petitioner claiming himself to be RTI activist, has indulged in blackmailing the public servants if his demand is not met. The petitioner put threat to the third respondent of getting him transferred to a far off place. This certainly amounts to interfering with discharging the official duty. Moreover the matter is under investigation and hence the FIR cannot be quashed.
8. I have considered the arguments. In this petition the quashing of FIR is sought. It is a well established principle that the High Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or section 482 of the Cr.P.C with great circumspection for quashing the FIR. Nipping the criminal action at the inception is not :: 12 ::
encouraged unless it is pointed out that the FIR does not disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence complained of or registration of FIR is with mala fide intention. Investigation process should not be stalled. In the case of State of Karnataka and Another vs Pastor P Raju [(2006) 6 SCC 728] it is held that the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice, but such a power cannot be exercised to interfere with statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable case.
9. In the case on hand, second respondent police has registered FIR against the petitioner for the offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 of IPC. Of these three offences, the only cognizable offence is under section 353, the other two being non-cognizable. Therefore, firstly it is to be found :: 13 ::
out whether the report given by the third respondent makes out ingredients necessary for invoking that offence. In order to appreciate the facts, it is better to extract here the report made by the third respondent : -
" © GUÀæ¥Àà ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÈÀ ¢Þ C¢üPÁj PÀ®èªÀÄAqÀÆÌgÀÄ UÁæªÄÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw EªÀjUÉ DgÀPÀëPÀ G¥À¤jÃPÀëPÀgÄÀ DgÀPÀëPÀ oÁuÉ ªÀÄÆqÀÄ©¢gÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÄÀ ä PÀbÉÃjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°èPÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.04.2020 ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÉÄð£À G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æÃ.¸Àwñï vÉÆÃqÀQ® PÀ®èªÄÀ AqÀÆÌgÄÀ EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ FUÁUÀ¯Éà zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ F «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÀÆqÁ vÀªÄÀ ä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.
1. ¸Àwñï EªÀgÄÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è £À£ßÀ §UÉÎ QüÀÄ ±À§ÝUÀ¼À°è §gÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁQ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
2. CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÄÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÞªÁVgÀ¢zÀÝ°è, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M¥Àà¢zÀÝgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w ºÀQÌ£À°è ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉý ¨ÉÃgÉ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è CrØ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
:: 14 ::
3. Hj£À°è EªÀgÆÉ A¢UÉ ªÉʪÀÄ£À¸ÄÀ ì ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ PÀbÉÃj PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉUÉ (¤Ãj®èzÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÌÉ ) ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÄÉ ä «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîvÛÉãÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ © GUÀ¥àÀ "
10. The FIR came to be registered in the background of posting of a message or information by the petitioner on social media. For invoking the offence under section 353 the essential ingredient to be present is that a person accused of committing this offence should have assaulted or used criminal force against a public servant while discharging his official duty. The words 'criminal force' and 'assault' find their meaning in sections 350 and 351 IPC respectively. Section 350 requires the following ingredients to be satisfied : -
(i) Intentional use of force to any person :: 15 ::
(ii) Force must have been used without the person's consent and
(iii) The force must be used for committing an offence or with intention to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom it is used.
11. The word 'assault' as defined in section 351 means making of a gesture or preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that the gesture or the preparation will cause apprehension in the mind of another person that criminal force will be used against him. The illustrations to sections 350 and 351 IPC make the meaning of words 'criminal force' and 'assault' very clear. In common parlance, the word 'assault' is understood as 'one person beating another person with or without weapon'. But this common parlance meaning cannot be employed while examining the :: 16 ::
FIR to find out whether an offence under section 353 IPC is made out or not, in the given set of circumstances. In the case on hand, the third respondent has made three allegations as extracted above. First allegation is that the petitioner posted certain messages in awkward language. The second one pertains to putting threat to him in case he did not agree for his demands and that the third one is again putting threat to getting him transferred to another place in case he attended to the work of anybody whom the petitioner did not like. These allegations do not disclose either using criminal force or making assault. No doubt the third petitioner is a public servant. Mere posting of a message on social media does not amount to interference by the petitioner with his official duties and thereby constitutes an offence punishable under section 353 IPC. There is no allegation that the petitioner ever made a gesture or used criminal force to the :: 17 ::
annoyance of the third respondent. Of course, the third allegation of getting the third respondent transferred may amount to putting threat which is punishable under section 506 IPC, but it does not fall within the ambit of section 353. Further, there are no ingredients for attracting the offence under section 507 at all. Both the offences under sections 506 and 507 are non-cognizable and no investigation could have been undertaken without the permission of the Magistrate. Probably in order to obviate the necessity of taking permission from the Magistrate, the second respondent might have invoked the offence under section 353 IPC. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Surajkumar Satyabrath Pal vs State of Maharashtra [2015 SCC Online Bombay 2994] to garner support for his argument that there is no case for quashing FIR. The facts of this case clearly disclose that the :: 18 ::
offence under section 353 IPC was invoked and in the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the assault as defined under section 351 was made out. This judgment is not applicable here. Even in Annexure-R9 there are no materials disclosing commission of offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 IPC. Therefore, if the petitioner is unnecessarily prosecuted for this offence, it is nothing but abuse of process of court. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a ground for quashing the FIR.
12. Another complaint of the petitioner is that he was not able to procure a copy of the FIR as it was not uploaded on the official website of the police department. In this regard it is necessary to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Youth Bar Association of India (supra) where certain :: 19 ::
guidelines are given by the Supreme Court to the police. It is not necessary to refer to all the guidelines here. Though it is submitted by the Government Pleader that the FIRs are being uploaded on the official website of the police department, in order to emphasize the strict compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court given in the case of Youth Bar Association of India (supra), direction may be issued once again.
13. In the result, this writ petition succeeds.
The FIR in Crime No. 95/2020 against the petitioner for the offences under sections 353, 506 and 507 of IPC is quashed.
The Department of Home, Government of Karnataka, is hereby directed to upload every FIR registered in every police station across the State of Karnataka in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Youth Bar :: 20 ::
Association of India vs Union of India and Another [(2016) 9 SCC 473].
Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Karnataka State, and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, for implementation.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl