IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.18117-18118/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. U. VEERENDRA HEGDE, S/O. LATE N. VASUDEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. "OMKAR", UDYAVARA, NH66, POST: UDYAVARA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-574 118.
2. SRI. U. RAVINDRA HEGDE, S/O. LATE N. VASUDEVA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. "PRADHAN", GUDDEYANGADI, POST: UDYAVARA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-574 118. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri: ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV. FOR Sri VINAYAKA B., ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KAPU POLICE STATION, KAPU, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 106, REPRESENTED BY SPP., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT. ANITHA BHASKAR, ASST. DIRECTOR, AGE MAJOR, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, MCC NODAL OFFICER, UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri S.RACHAIAH, HCGP. FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT VIDE ANNEXURE-A REGISTERED BY THE KAPU POLICE IN CRIME NO.36/2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 506, 504, 353 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 123[1] OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1950, 1951 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE [JR.DN.] & JMFC COURT, UDUPI DIST, UDUPI.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Order Petitioners are owners of a saree shop called ‘Jayalakshmi Silks and Sarees’. On 02.04.2019, a flying squad during the parliamentary election went to the shop and called upon the petitioners to show the stock. Petitioners demanded for the search warrant and questioned their authority. Accordingly, one Anitha Bhaskar, Assistant Director of Tourism Department and Nodal Officer filed a complaint against the petitioners on 02.04.2019 registered as Crime No.36/2019 in Kapu Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC and 123(1) of Representation of People Act.
2. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners adverting to the complaint pointed out that a careful reading of the complaint shows that the petitioners demanded from the flying squad official for a search warrant and accordingly, the flying squad official has filed a complaint. He further submitted that petitioners are well within their rights to demand for search warrant. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing these petitions.
He argued that complaint does not contain ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners.
3. Sri Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader argued in support of the FIR.
4. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
5. A careful perusal of the gist recorded in the FIR and the complaint shows that the entire allegation has ensued when petitioners demanded for a search warrant. A citizen of this Country is entitled to protect his interest against unauthorized and oppressive exercise of power/authority either by the Police or any person invested with police powers. Therefore, demand for a search warrant is absolutely legitimate. The subsequent sentence in the complaint alleging that the petitioners have spoken in singular language does not constitute any offence under Section 353 IPC. The complaint read in its entirety does not show that petitioners have physically prevented the flying squad officials. If the right of a citizen demanding for a search warrant is oppressed by filing criminal complaint, the same amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, these petitions merit consideration and accordingly, they are allowed. Consequently, all criminal proceedings against petitioners are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS