IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7440 OF 2016 BETWEEN SRI MAHESH S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.110-A KUMBARAKOPPALU MYSURU. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI B.N. PUNEETH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU.
2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION VIJAYANAGARA MYSURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R2 R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CR.NO.295/2014 REGISTERED BY 2ND RESPONDENT U/S.
353 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C-IV, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.833/2015 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashment of chargesheet in Crime No.295/2014 filed by the respondent/Police on the file of JMFC-IV at Mysore in C.C.No.833/2015.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case presents a classic case of how the Police highhandedly register a case against the public just because they questioned the Police for being rude or unnecessarily causing trouble to the general public. It is submitted that on 30.10.2014 the respondent/Police were doing their duty near Water Tank, Vijayanagara, when two persons by name Venkatesh and Narasimha who were proceeding on their two wheeler bearing No.KA-09-EN- 4530 were asked to stop and to pay a fine for not wearing helmet. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Social Activist and two persons informed him that the Police have harassed him. Therefore, the petitioner proceeded to the Police Station. On enquiring as to why the said two persons were being harassed, the Police have imposed fine even on petitioner for coming on a two wheeler without wearing helmet. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws an attention of this Court to the receipts produced along with the petition papers, which shows that fine of Rs.100 each were collected from the petitioner and other three persons including another person who had accompanied the petitioner to the Police Station. However, the next day, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and three others for the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The allegation is that they questioned and prevented the public servants from discharging their duties. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner and other three persons surrounded the Police officials while they were discharging their duties at Vijayanagar, Mysore on 30.10.2014 and used abused language that they are only harassing public and they could not do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the complaint, pointed out that the complaint is registered on 01.11.2014 at 6.15 p.m. while, if the facts narrated in the complaint were correct, the complaint would have been registered on 30.10.2014, when the petitioner along with the other three persons were present in the Police Station. The very fact that the petitioner and other three persons have paid fine on 30.10.2014 for not wearing helmet, proves that the Police could have registered the complaint that they prevented the Police official from discharging their duties on 30.10.2014 itself. This, very clearly shows that the respondent/Police officials have acted highhandedly and only in order to harass the petitioner who is a Social Activist, have lodged the complaint on the next day.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner and other three persons committed the offence under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC on 30.10.2014, though there may be a delay in filing the complaint.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the petition papers.
6. On going to the petition papers and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint lodged by the respondent/Police more that 24 hours after the incident has occurred, cannot be condoned. If it is a fact that the petitioner and the other three persons named in the complaint prevented the Police officials from discharging their duties on 30.10.2014, it was incumbent upon the respondent/Police to have registered a complaint on that very day, more so, when the petitioner and the other three persons went to the Police Station on 30.10.2014 and it is seen from the records that a fine of Rs.100 each was imposed on all the four persons on 30.10.2014. Although, it is mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner and other three persons prevented the Police from discharging their duties on 30.10.2014, no other reason is spelt out in the complaint as to why there was delay in registering the complaint.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition requires to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The chargesheet in Crime No.295/2014 registered by the respondent/Police in C.C.No.833/2016 on the file of the JMFC-IV at Mysore and all further proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY.