IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25638 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI PRAMOD MUTHALIK, S/O SRI PRAMOD HANUMANTH RAO MUTHALIK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SRI SHANKAR MANE, NEW PAVAN ENGLISH SCHOOL, BAR KOTRE, DHARWAD-580 001.
AND:
... PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM.M., ADVOCATE) 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SHIRALAKUPPA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNANTAKA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION ORDER DATED: 28.04.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 THEREBY ACCORDING SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.130/2017 REGISTERED AND INVESTIGATED BY THE R-1 POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 295-A OF IPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER A Police Constable by name Shri.Sandeep S.R, submitted a report as per Annexure-C to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police stating that during the course of a public speech, petitioner had spoken in provocative manner. Accordingly, FIR No.130/2017 was registered in Shiralakuppa Police Station on 25.05.2017. After investigation, police have filed charge sheet. Petitioner has challenged said proceedings in this petition.
2. Shri.Aruna Shyam M, learned advocate for the petitioner urged two grounds in support of this petition.
firstly, that complaint is bald in nature and does not disclose any offence. It also does not disclose any untoward incident.
Secondly that Section 196 Cr.P.C places an embargo upon any Court from taking cognizance of offence without previous sanction of the State Government. State Government by order dated 28.04.2018 have accorded sanction. But, the said sanction order does not disclose any application of mind. Hence, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are unsustainable in law.
3. In support of his argument he relied upon the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.6/2019 (Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar Vs. The State of Karnataka and another) decided on 24.01.2019.
4. Shri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State argued in support of the charge sheet and the sanction order. He submitted that as it was observed by the informant that the language used by the petitioner was provocative in nature, he has rightly submitted the report to his senior Police Officer.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records. Learned advocate for the petitioner is right in his submission that the report does not disclose that there was any disturbance to public order. The alleged function has taken place in broad day light between 12.45 p.m and 2.45 p.m. No citizen has lodged any complaint. On the other hand a police man has submitted a report leading to registration of complaint.
6. As far as the second ground with regard to sanction by the State Government is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner is right that no reasons are recorded in the said order. Prosecution of a citizen in a democratic Country is a serious matter.
Petitioner will be compelled to appear in criminal Courts and undergo the ordeal of under trial.
7. Section 196 of Cr.P.C is a safety clause to ensure that innocent citizens are not harassed by foisting false cases. When previous sanction by the Central or the State Government as the case may be having been mandatory, it is incumbent on the State Government to pass speaking orders clearly recording reasons while justifying permission to prosecute any citizen. It is stated in the sanction order that investigation has ‘proved’ the offence and accordingly permission has been granted. Police personnel are deployed to maintain public order. There is no whisper about any breach in public order. Further, no citizen has registered any FIR against the accused.
8. In the circumstances, this petition merits consideration on both grounds namely that the complaint does not disclose that if petitioner’s speech caused any disturbance and secondly, that the sanction order is bereft of any reasons.
9. In the result, petition is allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.323/2018 arising out of Crime No.130/2017 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Shikaripura, Shimoga District are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH