Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kaleem Sabir vs State Of Karnataka By on 11 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGAL URU
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2021
BEFOR E
THE HON'BLE MR . JUSTICE SREEN IVAS HARISH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.12820 OF 2021 (GM RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri Kaleem Sabir,
S/o Ashfaq Ahmed,
Aged about 29 years,
Advocate,
R/at #57, BTM 1 s t Stage,
9 t h Main, Behind Saint Thomas
School, B.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560029.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Tejas N, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
High Grounds Police,
Bengaluru-560001.
(Represented by Learned
Government Advocate)
2. Sri Avinash G.S.,
S/o Shivaraju,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at 6 t h Main, Near Rabin Theatre,
Kengeri Upnagara,
Bengaluru-560060.
3. Inspector General of Police,
Police Headquaters No.2,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
:: 2 ::
4. Sri Bheemsen Ghatge,
Police Sub-Inspector,
High Grounds Police Station,
Millers Road, Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondents
(By Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP for R1, R3 & R4;
R2 - served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the proceeding initiated in
C.C.No.14036/2021 in the file of the Hon'ble 8th
Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru, which is arising out of Crime
No.15/2020 of High Grounds Police, Bengaluru as er
Annexure-C as an abuse of process of Law.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Tejas N, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.J.Rohith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3 and 4. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but there is no representation on his behalf.
2. Petitioner is accused No.7 in C.C.No.14036/2021 on the file of the VIII :: 3 ::
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. The second respondent was working as an assistant for the police for towing the vehicles parked in no parking zones. The specific allegation is that at 3.00pm on 15.02.2020, near Devaraj Urs Bhavan, Thimmaiah road, the police saw some two wheelers being parked at a no parking zone. They gave an announcement using loud speakers for removing the vehicles from the no parking zone, but nobody came. They waited for sometime and then lifted the vehicles bearing Reg.No.KA-47/Q-1273, KA-47/J-7161, KA-03/JW- 9633, KA-03/EQ-5545, KA-35/R-7668, KA-41/Q- 6824, KA-05/KC-7333, KA-51/HE-1699 and KA- 04/JH-2596 from that place to the police station.
4. On the same day, at about 06.30pm, a person came to the police station and seeing the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-47/Q-1273 being there, :: 4 ::
raised his voice and identified himself to be an Advocate and demanded for release of his vehicle. When the second respondent told him that the Assistant Sub Inspector should come and release the vehicle, he took videograph of all the vehicles parked in front of the police station and made a call to some persons and asked them to come there. Sometime later a few persons came to that place. The second respondent asked all those persons to speak to the Assistant Sub Inspector- Narayanaswamy, who had come to that place at that time. Those persons said that since they were all Advocates, they would not speak to anybody and picked up quarrel with the police and assaulted the second respondent. In this regard, FIR came to be registered at 22.30 hours for the offences punishable under Sections 283, 323, 353 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
:: 5 ::
5. Sri Tejas N, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Advocate and actually, his vehicle had not been lifted by the police on 15.02.2020. Just because his vehicle was found to be parked at some distance from the place from where other vehicles were lifted, the police appear to have included his vehicle in the FIR. He refers to spot panchanama to argue that in the panchanama, there is no mention of vehicles which were lifted on 15.02.2020. Then he refers to case diary to submit that even the registration numbers of the vehicles have not been mentioned in it. Then he also submits that although the FIR was registered at 10.30pm on 15.02.2020, the FIR was sent to Magistrate on 17.02.2020. Therefore, it is his submission that if all these aspects are taken into consideration, veracity in the FIR can be doubted. Unnecessarily the police have registered a complaint against the petitioner even though he :: 6 ::
was not at all the owner of any vehicle among those vehicles which were said to have been lifted by the police. The charge sheet filed pursuant to the FIR is also illegal and it does not disclose any offence for prosecuting the petitioner.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that a group of people furiated by lifting of the vehicles came to police station and picked up quarrel with the police. They prevented the police from discharging their official duties and this was the reason why the FIR came to be registered against them for the said offences. This FIR is nothing to do with lifting of vehicles.
Therefore, investigation reveals participation of the petitioner also in committing the crime and therefore, there is no ground to interfere.
7. After hearing both the sides, it may be stated that though it may be a fact that the police might have lifted some vehicles which were parked :: 7 ::
in the no parking zone, the other allegation is that at about 06.30pm on 15.02.2020, an Advocate went to police station and picked up quarrel with second respondent for having lifted his vehicle. But, in regard to this incident, as argued by the petitioner's counsel, a doubt arises as regards the genuineness of the FIR and the charge sheet.
8. In the report made by the second respondent to the High Grounds police station for registration of FIR, registration numbers of vehicles are mentioned, but the same numbers are not mentioned in the case diary. The full narration of the entire incident that took place on 15.02.2020 has been given. If the police lifted the vehicles using the towing vehicles, they ought to have written down the registration numbers of the vehicles, because Section 201 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for imposing penalty on a person who parks the vehicle causing obstruction :: 8 ::
to free flow of traffic. So, immediately after collecting the fine amount, the police are supposed to issue receipt mentioning the vehicle number. This being the requirement of law, if in the case diary the vehicle numbers were not mentioned, it gives scope for doubting the action taken by the police. Another important aspect to be mentioned here is that though the alleged incident is said to have taken place at 06.30pm in the premises of police station, the FIR was registered at 10.30pm, more than that, the FIR reached the Magistrate on 17.02.2020. There is no explanation for the delay.
So if all these aspects are taken into consideration, the very incident that respondent No.2 reported to the police becomes doubtful to be believed. If FIR itself is doubtful, the investigation held on the basis of the said FIR and the charge sheet filed thereafter also becomes doubtful. In this view, prosecuting the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore :: 9 ::
finding a case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the following order is passed.
ORDER Petition is allowed.
Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.14036/2021 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv/-