IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1382/2014 BETWEEN:
MR. K.R. DAYANANDA S/O. RAJAGOPALACHARYA AGED 45 YEARS NO.1566/A, SRI RANGA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR TIPTUR TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S. SHANKARAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE ARASIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2. MR. UMESH A.N. MAJOR IN AGE REVENUE INSPECTOR KANAKATTE HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.
3. KESHAVAMURTHY MAJOR IN AGE TAHASILDHAR ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.255/2013 OF ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE STATION, ARASIKERE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND J.M.F.C., ARASIKERE, HASSAN DIST.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.255/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are duly served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a report before the Rural Police Station, Arasikere alleging that on 19.12.2013 when the Tahsildar, Assistant Director of Land Records, Chief Administrative Officer, Executive Officer of Tauk Panchayat along with Taluk Surveyor and other government officials were involved in removing the encroachment, at about 3.30 pm, the petitioner herein abused the Tahsildar in filthy language thereby, obstructed the Tahsildar in discharge of official duty.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above allegations are vague and do not constitute the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 353 and 504 of IPC. The complainant has not narrated the manner in which the Tahsildar was obstructed in discharging lawful duty. According to the complaint, apart from Tahsildar, other officials were present during occurrence. The petitioner was issued with a notice by the revenue officer to cooperate during the proceedings. Under the said circumstances, the question of petitioner either obstructing the revenue officials or abusing the Tahsildar does not arise at all. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are false and malafide and thus seeks to quash the said proceedings.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for State, however has argued in support of the impugned action. In support of his submission, the learned HCGP has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Irfan Khan Vs Gaghavendra Parbu and other in Crl.P.No.8030/2013 disposed of on 26.06.2018.
6. The averments made in the complaint, in my view, do not make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 353 or 504 of IPC. It is trite law that in order to constitute an offence under Section 353 of Cr.P.C., accused should assault or use criminal force against public servant in the execution of his duty or with an intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty. But there are no allegations whatsoever in the entire complaint that the petitioner herein either assaulted or used criminal force against the Tahsildar or any other government servants who were present at the spot. On the other hand, the records disclose that the petitioner was issued with a notice to be present during the removal of encroachment. Under the said circumstances, prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 353 IPC cannot be sustained.
7. Insofar as the offence under Sec.504 of IPC is concerned, the petition is silent as to the alleged abuse hurled against the Tahsildar. Sec. 504 of IPC postulates intentional insult with an intent to provoke the complainant to breach of peace or any other person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. In the absence of specific abusive words attributed to the accused, it is difficult to hold that the alleged abuses were intended to provoke a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence.
8. Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the allegations made in the complaint even if accepted in entirety, are not sufficient to make out the offences alleged against the petitioner. As a result, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed so as to prevent abuse of process of court.
9. For the above reasons, petition is allowed.
FIR in Cr.No.255/2013 of Arasikere Rural Police Station pending on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Arasikere, Hassan District is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-