IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.403 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. IMRAN KHAN @ BABU @ YOUSUFF SHARIFF S/O DASTAGIR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS PROPRIETOR UMRAH DEVELOPERS NO.13/1, MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 087 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: ABHILASH RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR IRFANA NAZEER AND ASSOCIATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION, ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562102.
2. SRI R ANIL KUMAR TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK-562102 BENGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ---
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.198/2015 FILED BEFORE THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) JMFC COURT, ANEKAL OF ANEKAL P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 353,504 OF IPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No.198/2015 of Anekal Police Station pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Anekal, for the offences punishable under sections 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.
3. FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by the Tahsildar – second respondent. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 22.6.2015 at about 5.15 p.m., the petitioner herein abused the case worker of Taluka Office and also took away the case file bearing No.LRF/(109)CR/9/15-16.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident alleged in the FIR has not taken place at all. The said complaint is a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein against the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru, in Crime No.251/2015 of Ulsoor Gate Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 504 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. Further he submits that the allegations made against the petitioner, even if accepted on their face value, do not make out the ingredients of the offences under sections 353 or 504. In order to constitute an offence under section 353 Indian Penal Code, there must necessarily be assault or use of criminal force. Such allegation is conspicuously absent in the instant case. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MANIK TANEJA & Another vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Another disposed of on 20.01.2015. Further he submits that as on the alleged date of commission of offence, the petitioner was admitted in Divine Medical Centre, situated at HRBR Layout, Banaswadi Road, Kammanahalli, Banglore and had undergone a surgery for Septoplasty with Fess under general anesthesia. He was attended to by Dr.Stephen Antony and in this regard, discharge summary is produced along with the petition.
5. Learned SPP-II has seriously opposed the submissions and contended that the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., and hence he seeks to dismiss the petition.
6. On considering the rival submissions and on going through the material on record, it is seen that the impugned FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by the Tahsildar. The allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein abused the case worker of the Taluka Office and also took away the case file. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under section 353 of Cr.P.C., yet a plain reading of Section 353 indicates that in order to constitute an offence under Section 353 Indian Penal Code there must necessarily be either assault or use of criminal force with intention to deter the public servant or to prevent him from discharging his office. What is criminal force is defined in section 350 of Indian Penal Code as under:-
“Section 350. Criminal force.- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”
7. The FIR contains specific allegations that by the act of the petitioner, the public servant working in the Office of the complainant is not only been deterred, but he is also prevented from discharging his lawful duties and it is further alleged that he has been abused by the petitioner which amounts to “annoyance” within the definition of criminal force. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the petitioner do not prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under section 353 of Indian Penal Code cannot be accepted. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with the question, whether posting of a comment on the Facebook amounts to criminal force? Considering the said issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the same does not fall within the ambit of section 353 of Indian Penal Code. But in the instant case, the fact situations are entirely different. For the reasons stated above, the principles discussed in the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of this case.
8. Insofar as the other contention urged by the petitioner that the instant complaint is a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner is also contrary to the records produced by the petitioner. Crime No.251/2015 is seen to have been registered at the instance of one Smt.Ruksana Taj. Though an attempt is made to contend that the petitioner is also called by name Yusaf Sharif, yet, in the absence of any such description of petitioner in the said FIR and more over the said FIR having been registered by one Smt.Ruksana Taj, even if she is happened to be the wife of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the instant complaint has originated on account of the said dispute between the Assistant Commissioner and the complainant therein. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel on this score also cannot be accepted.
9. Insofar as the medical records relied on by the petitioner, the relevancy and veracity thereof cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. As the allegations made against the petitioner prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences which require to be investigated, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the impugned FIR.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss