IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No.290/2019 BETWEEN:
1. KHIZAR AHMED, S/O MUKTHIYAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.4/244, TIPPU MAJSID, GALIPURA, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
2. AZAM, S/O ABDUL SUBAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.228, 2ND CROSS, GALIPURA, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
3. MOHAMMED ZAKIR, S/O ZABIULLA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT 13/100, K.P.MOHALLA, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
4. ISRAR PASHA, S/O KAMAL PASHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/192, AHMED NAGAR MOHALLA, NOOR MASJID, GALIPURA, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
5. SYED DASTAGIR, S/O SYED USMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.12/220, K.P.MOHALLA, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
6. IMRAN PASHA, S/O SARDAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/31, NEAR NOOR MASJID, GALIPURA, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
7. MOHAMMED FARMAN, S/O AKRAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/274, B.D.COLONY, NEAR URDU SCHOOL, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
8. MOHAMMED UMMAR, S/O AJAJ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT 479, B.D.COLONY, GALIPURA, NEAR TIPPU MASJID, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN – 571 313.
(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1853/2017 (CRIME NO.244/2016) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., COURT, CHAMARAJANAGAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos.78 to 88 in C.C.No.1853/2017 registered by Chamarajanagara Town Police for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w 149 IPC.
3. The allegations made against the petitioner and other accused persons by the prosecution is that, on 06.12.2016 workers of SDPI party had held a protest and a procession was taken out at Chamarajanagar Town by urging the authorities to reconstruct Babri Masjid and said procession was headed by District President-Abrar Ahmed and general Secretary-Jabeen Noor, who have already been issued notice by the petitioners and also intimated them about the dispute regarding Babri Masjid is still pending before the Supreme Court and despite requesting them not to conduct any procession and by way of precautionary measure had already obtained bond from accused Nos.1 to 7 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., yet they conducted procession in which more than 90 to 100 persons participated, whose presence came to be recorded by still photographs and also video disclosing participation of petitioners in said procession and protest held on 06.12.2016. However, petitioners are contending that they have not committed any offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w 149 IPC. Hence, they have sought for quashing of the proceedings.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioners that jurisdictional police had registered FIR only against eight accused persons and subsequently charge sheet is filed against 103 accused that too without any basis and even statement of witnesses would speak that petitioners were not present at the spot and on the basis of bald allegations, proceedings against petitioners cannot be continued and when there is specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 8, question of roping petitioners herein as accused would be illegal and improper. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.1853/2017 against petitioners.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for State would support the case of prosecution.
6. As could be seen from the records, namely, the charge sheet material, accused Nos.1 to 7 were made to bind themselves for maintaining peace by executing a bond as required under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. by the jurisdictional authorities. The case of the prosecution is that these accused persons had been intimated not to hold any protest or create any unruly scenes causing obstruction to public and all attempts were made by the police on 05.12.2016 against the accused persons-1 to 7 was in vain. Despite all such precautions being taken to ensure that peace and harmony is to be maintained in the said town, yet accused Nos.1 to 7 led a procession of about 90 to 100 persons raising slogans, holding black flags for reconstruction of Babri Masjid and also holding procession commencing from the RTO office to Tippu Sultan Circle via Gundlupete Circle till the office of the Deputy Commissioner and as such, it has been alleged that petitioners had obstructed the free flow and movement of traffic causing public inconvenience and such incident is claimed to have been recorded through still photographs and also video.
7. At the time of considering the prayer for quashing of the proceedings, the probable defence of the accused or the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint would not be in the domain of consideration by this Court. Examination of the allegations made in the complaint by micro analysis is also not called for. The probable defence that accused would be tendering which may lead to his acquittal would also be not in the domain of consideration by this Court. On the other hand, if careful reading of the complaint would disclose that allegations made therein are vexatious and frivolous and even if such allegations were to remain uncontroverted it would not lead to conviction would be a good ground on which this Court would exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, as otherwise not.
8. In this background, allegations made in the complaint when perused, it would disclose that offence alleged having been committed by accused. Hence, it would not be apt and appropriate for this Court to stifle the proceedings before trial Court at this stage. This Court is of the considered view that correction of charge sheet material will have to be adjudicated before the jurisdictional Court after trial. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. Hence, petition stands rejected.
In view of rejection of petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE TL