Karnataka High Court
Mavalli Shankar vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21771
WP No. 14383 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14383 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MAVALLI SHANKAR
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
ADDRESS AS PER CHARGESHEET
ITI COLONY, DOORAVANI NAGAR
NEAR SBI BANK, KR PURA
BANGALORE-560 016
R/A NO. 151, 9TH CROSS
LALBAGH FORT ROAD, DODDA MAVALLI
BENGALURU - 560 004
2. MAITREYI KRISHNAN
Digitally signed
by KRISHNAPPA D/O NJ KRISHNAN
LAXMI YASHODA AGED 41 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ADDRESS AS PER CHARGESHEET
KARNATAKA ITI COLONY DOORAVANI NAGAR
NEAR SBI BANK KR PURA
BANGALORE - 560 016
R/A NO. 16-A, SINGAPURA GARDEN
GUBLALALA GATE KANAKPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062
3. VENKATESH
S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21771
WP No. 14383 of 2025
HC-KAR
ADDRESS AS PER CHARGESHEET
111 COLONY DOORAVANI NAGAR
NEAR SBI BANK KR PURA
BANGALORE-560 016
R/A NO. 187, LAKSHMIPURA
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-561 201
4. GOWRAMMA
W/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ADDRESS AS PER CHARGESHEET
ITI COLONY DOORAVANI NAGAR
NEAR SBI BANK KR PURA
BANGALORE-560 016
R/A MADESHWARA NILAYA
JAYABHARAT ROAD NETRAVATI LAYOUT
KR PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036
5. GOPAL GOWDA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
ADDRESS AS PER CHARGESHEET
ITI COLONY DOORAVANI NAGAR
NEAR SBI BANK KR PURA
BANGALORE-560 016
HAVING ADDRESS AT
CITO OFFICE UDAYA NAGAR
DOORAVANI NAGARA POST
BANGALORE - 560 016
5. HEMANTH
S/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ADDRESS AS PER CHARGESHEET
ITI COLONY DOORAVANI NAGAR
NEAR SBI BANK KR PURA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21771
WP No. 14383 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 016
R/A NO. 51, 11TH CROSS
CD RAMANNA BUILDING
VIGNESHWARA NAGARA
SUNKADAKATTE
BANGALORE - 560 091
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRUTI C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY K.R PURAM POLICE STATION
REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA.R., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
482 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO QUASH TH ORDER (DATE NOT
FORTH COMING IN THE ORDER SHEET) TAKING COGNIZANCE
OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 269 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 50077/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-B
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21771
WP No. 14383 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to -
(i) Quash the order (date not forthcoming in the order sheet) taking cognizance of offence under Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the Petitioners and the proceedings in C.C. No. 50077/2023 pending on the file of the Learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, produced herewith as ANNEXURE-B;
(ii) Pass such other orders/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice."
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, pursuant to the complaint dated 07.02.2022 filed by the complainant, an FIR was -5- NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR registered in Crime No.32/2022 against the petitioners herein, i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3, 6, 7 and 9 and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005. In pursuance to the same, the respondent-Police conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet before the learned Magistrate, who took cognizance only of the offence under Section 269 of IPC and not under Section 188 of IPC and Section 51(a) of Disaster Management Act, in relation to which the cognizance was not taken by the learned Magistrate, which is pending in C.C.No.50077/2023. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present writ petition.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition referring to the material on record, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial -6- NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR Court having declined/refused to take cognizance for the primary offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, it is impermissible in law to take cognizance in relation to the impugned offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC, especially during the COVID-19 period. It is also submitted that the material on record does not disclose necessary ingredients attracting offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. In support of her submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. Sri Rajashekharananda Swamiji and another v. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.13328/2018, dated 18.06.2021;
2. Mr. Vishwesh Madane Vs. The State through the Police Inspector, Tarikere Police Station, Tarikere, in W.P.No.5185 of 2021, dated 19.07.2021;-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. D.K. Shivakumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, in W.P.No.3329/2023, dated 09.06.2023.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the material on record will undisputedly indicate that insofar as the primary offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, the learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance for the aforesaid offences. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so long as offence under Section 188 of IPC has been invoked, it is impermissible to split up the same from the remaining offences as held by this Court in the case of Sri Rajashekharananda Swamiji's case supra, which reads as under:
"Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada against the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioners are sustainable in law? is the question involved in this case.
2. On the basis of the complaint (Annexure- B) filed by A.K.Rajesh, Police Inspector, Mangalore Rural Police registered the first information report in Crime No.428/2014 (Annexure-C) against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 ('KPDLP Act' for short).
3. On investigation, Mangalore Rural Police charge sheeted the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act. In the charge sheet the petitioners are shown as accused Nos.1 and 12.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore city promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging -9- NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWs.5 to 8.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences.
6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-
A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.
7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860 ); or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant.
9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.
10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
(Emphasis supplied) 1 (1981) 2 SCC 185
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed.
The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed."
7. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment, in view of the non-taking of cognizance in relation to primary offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, the learned Magistrate clearly fell in error in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserved to be quashed on this ground alone.
8. Under identical circumstances, in relation to offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC, the co-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR ordinate Bench of this Court has held in the case of Mr. Vishwesh Madane supra, which reads as under:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent.
2. Petitioner, who is accused No.7 in Crime No.153/2021 registered by the Tarikere Town Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Sections 269 and 271 of IPC and Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M., Tarikere, Chikmagaluru, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case.
3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are:
On the complaint of Inspector of Police of Tarikere Police Station, Chikmagalur on 03.07.2021, FIR was registered in Crime No.153/2021 against seven accused persons for the aforesaid offences. In the complaint it is averred that having regard to COVID-19 pandemic when the lockdown as well as Section 144 Cr.P.C.
prohibitory orders were in force, on 03.07.2021, seven persons allegedly had gathered in room
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR No.107 of Chalukya Lodge of Tarikere Town and were indulged in playing cards game known as "Andar Bahar" and they were also placing bettings on their game. On receipt of information about the cards game being played in room No.107 of Chalukya Lodge, Tarikere town, the Police Inspector of Tarikere Town Police Station had lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, based on which FIR was registered in Crime No.153/2021. Subsequent to registration of the FIR, the Police had raided the spot and arrested all the accused persons and they were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the entire proceedings in the said case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence punishable under Sections 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 271 IPC and Section 5 of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 are non-cognizable offences and without permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, FIR cannot be registered against the accused for the said offence. He submits that offence under Section 269 of IPC will not be attracted having regard to the simple fact that none of the accused persons were tested Positive for COVID-19 and in the absence of such a
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR material, the Police could not have invoked Section 269 of IPC. He submits that only for the reason that permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C is required for registering of case under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Police had deliberately invoked Section 269 of IPC. He submits that in identical circumstances, this Court in Criminal Petition No.2089/2021 disposed of on 08.07.2021 has quashed the proceedings. He also submits that the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Crl.A.No.453/2020 has held that unless ingredient under Section 269 of IPC is fulfilled, the said provision cannot be invoked and accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition would submit that since cognizable offence has been invoked in the FIR, there is no need to obtain permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and he submits that having regard to the pandemic situation, the accused persons should not have played cards, which was likely to spread disease and therefore, Police have rightly invoked Section 269 of IPC.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both side and perused the material on record.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. The complainant on receipt of credible information has lodged a complaint, which has resulted in registering FIR against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Sections 269 and 271 of IPC and Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020.
8. Reading of the complaint averments would clearly go to show that the ingredients for the purpose of attracting Section 269 of IPC is completely absent. The petitioners were all found in a hotel room and therefore, it cannot be said that they were guilty of unlawfully or negligently doing any act which they know or they have reason to believe that it is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. It is not the case of the prosecution that any one of the accused persons had tested Positive for COVID-19 and in the absence of any such material, the offence under Section 269 of IPC cannot be prima facie invoked as against the accused persons.
9. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.A.No.453/2020 rendered by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, it has been held that unless the ingredients, which would attract Section 269 of IPC, are found in the complaint averments, the said provision of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR law cannot be invoked. Further, this Court in Criminal Petition No.2089/2021 DD 08.07.2021 has held that deliberate attempt to invoke Section 269 of IPC with an intention to avoid obtaining permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for registration of a case for non-cognizable offences cannot be permitted. Except Section 269 of IPC, the other offences invoked in the present case are all non-cognizable in nature and therefore, prior permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. In the case on hand, such permission has not been obtained by the prosecution. Further, though it is alleged that the petitioner was indulged in a game of chance, the complaint averments do not state as to how the prosecution has come to a conclusion that the game of cards allegedly played by the petitioner was a game of chance and not a game of skill.
10. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has abused the process of law by registering a criminal case against the petitioner invoking the alleged offences and therefore, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the same. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER This Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.153/2021
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR registered by the Tarikere Town Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Sections 269 and 271 of IPC and Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M., Tarikere, Chikmagaluru, is quashed as against the petitioner.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it stands disposed of."
9. Further, another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of D. K. Shivakumar (supra), has held as under:
"The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.32628/2021, which arose out of the a private complaint in P.C.R.No.11/2021, registered on 20.01.2021, pending before the 42nd ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences under Section 269 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri Arnav A.Bagalwadi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case germane for consideration of the lis, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
On 21.01.2021, the petitioner along with others had staged a Dharna from the City Railway Station to Freedom Park and was accompanied by several hundreds of people. Despite existence of standard operating procedure apart guidelines and norms issued by the Government on the onset of COVID - 19. On 23.11.2021, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences and registers a case in C.C.No.32628/2021 against the petitioner for offences under Section 269 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.100332/2022, disposed on 07.02.2022, wherein this Court has considered the very offences and has obliterated the proceedings against the petitioners therein and therefore, he seeks very
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR same relief granted by this Court in the aforesaid petition.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner has to undergo trial and come out clean in the trial. He would admit the position of law as is laid down by this Court in the aforesaid petition - Crl.P.No.100332/2022.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. It is germane to notice Section 269 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Section 269 of the IPC reads as under:
"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.--Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 reads as follows:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR "51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.--
(a) xxxxxxx
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences."
Section 269 of the IPC makes one guilty of the offence, if by unlawful or negligent act of any person, results in likelihood of spread of infection of certain diseases, which is dangerous to life. There is no allegation of the kind against the petitioner as is indicated in Section 269 of the IPC that, due to such an act of the petitioner, there was spreading of disease. The issue in the case at hand need not detain this Court or delve deep into the matter as the issue is covered by the order rendered by this Court in
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR Crl.P.No.100332/2022 disposed on 07.02.2022, which covers the issue on all its fours. This Court in the said petition has held as follows:
"3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
On receipt of credible information of the alleged incident by the complainant-Police Inspector, during his patrolling duty, that some unknown persons were playing cards by violating pandemic lockdown restriction, a raid was conducted and several articles were seized and accordingly, complaint was registered for offences punishable under Sections 188, 269 and Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. The police after investigation have filed charge sheet dropping section 188 of IPC, but retaining Section 269 of IPC and Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court.
4. The issue with regard to registration of the offences as aforesaid under Section 269 of IPC and Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act need not detain this Court or delve deep into the matter, as the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr.Vishwesh Madane V/s. The State of Karnataka, Tarikeri Police Station in Crl.P.NO.5185/2021 disposed on 19.07.2021 has held as follows:
"7. The complainant on receipt of credible information has lodged a complaint, which has resulted in registering FIR against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Sections 269 and 271 of IPC and Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020.
8. Reading of the complaint averments would clearly go to show that the ingredients for the purpose of attracting Section 269 of IPC is completely absent. The petitioners were all found in a hotel room and
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR therefore, it cannot be said that they were guilty of unlawfully or negligently doing any act which they know or they have reason to believe that it is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. It is not the case of the prosecution that any one of the accused persons had tested Positive for COVID-19 and in the absence of any such material, the offence under Section 269 of IPC cannot be prima facie invoked as against the accused persons.
9. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.A.No.453/2020 rendered by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, it has been held that unless the ingredients, which would attract Section 269 of IPC, are found in the complainant averments, the said provision of law cannot be invoked. Further, this Court in Criminal Petition No.2089/2021 DD 08.07.2021 has held that deliberate attempt to invoke Section 269 of IPC with an intention to avoid obtaining permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for registration of a case for non-cognizable offences cannot be permitted. Except Section 269 of IPC, the other offences invoked in the present case are all non-cognizable in nature and therefore, prior permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. In the case on hand, such permission has not been obtained by the prosecution. Further, though it is alleged that the petitioner was indulged in a game of chance, the complaint averments do not state as to how the prosecution has come to a conclusion that the game of cards allegedly played by the petitioner was a game of chance and not a game of skill.
10. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has abused the process of law by registering a criminal case against the petitioner invoking the alleged offences and therefore, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the same. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
Order This Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime NO.153/2021 registered by the Tarikere Town Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR offences punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act 1963, Sections 269 and 271 of IPC and Sections 5(1) of the Karnataka Epidemic Disease Act, 2020 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M., Tarikere, Chikkamagaluru, is quashed as against the petitioner.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A. does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it stands disposed of.
Earlier to the aforesaid judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7388/2020 disposed on 02.02.2021. has held as follows:
"7. On perusal of the FIR, case is registered against the unknown persons and the same was registered at about 04:00 p.m., after the arrest, the FIR was also sent to the Court at 05:00 p.m., Having perused the complaint, there is a 6 force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that only in order to take the advantage of non-compliance of Section 155(1) and (2) or Cr.P.C., the prosecution has invoked Section 269 of IPC.
8. No doubt, there was a lock down on the date of the incident and when the credible information was received, the prosecution ought to have registered the case invoking Section 154 of Cr.P.C., It is also important to note that though raid was conducted at 3:00 PM., the FIR was registered at 4:00 p.m. further, the FIR also discloses that the case was registered against unknown persons.
9. complaint discloses that an 12.04.2020, at about 03.30 p.m. complaint and his staff went to the spot and apprehended these petitioners complainant. Material available on record are contrary to each other and hence, this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for noncompliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., Records also disclose 7 that though cognizable offence was taken place, FIR was not registered and before registering the FIR, alleged rapid was conducted."
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR In the light of the issue standing covered by the order of this Court on all its fours, which infact followed the earlier judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.VISHWESH MADANE VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRL.P.NO.5185/2021 DISPOSED ON 19.07.2021.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in C.C.No. 32628/2021, pending before the 42nd ACMM, Bengaluru, stand quashed.
I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed, as a consequence."
10. In the instant case, a perusal of the material on record will indicate that necessary ingredients disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC are conspicuously absent and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21771 WP No. 14383 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order (date not forthcoming in the order sheet) in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 269 of IPC against the petitioners herein and all further proceedings in C.C.No.50077/2023, (in Crime No.32/2022 registered by K.R.Puram Police Station) pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Mayohall, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed and set aside.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DL CT:JL