® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9366 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SHRI VIJAY TATA SON OF R.S. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING NO.479, HMT LAYOUT NEAR R.T. NAGAR BUS DEPOT R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR ADV. FOR SHRI GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI A.S. PONNANNA, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SHRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.59/2018 PENDING ONT EH FILE OF I A.C.M.M., NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 353, 120B OF IPC, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
2. This petition is filed challenging FIR No.59/2018 registered on 13.12.2018 in Vidhana Soudha police station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 & 120B of IPC against petitioner and two others.
3. Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior advocate, adverting to the complaint lodged by one Shri Manjunath.B, Police Inspector, CCB, Bengaluru, pointed out that the contents of complaint are to the effect that Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin held a press conference in Press club in Bengaluru on 12.12.2018 and in the said press conference, they had allegedly made certain uncharitable allegations against Police officers, CCB, who were investigating the offences in respect of a Company called ‘Ambident’; and stated that their investigation had facilitated the accused in the said case to obtain bail. With the said allegations, instant complaint has been lodged alleging offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC in Vidhana Soudha police station. He argued that if the complaint is read in its entirety, it does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. He placed reliance on Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another1 and submitted that the instant complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this petition.
4. Shri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General argued in support of the complaint.
1 (2015) 7 SCC 423 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Senior Advocate, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the records.
6. Section 353 of IPC reads as follows:
“353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In substance, what is alleged in the complaint is that two persons namely, Mr. Zaid Khan and Mr. Sirajuddin had made certain uncharitable comments against Police officers. When the allegations levelled in the complaint are examined in the light of language employed in Section 353 of IPC, it is clear that complaint does not contain any allegation of assault or use of criminal force to a public servant with intent to prevent him from discharging his duty. It is unfortunate that Police officers have resorted to registering a complaint without there being any ingredients attributable to Section 353 of IPC. In Manik Taneja, the Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
“10. So far as the issue regarding the registration of FIR under Section 353 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen whether by posting a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police, the conviction under that section could be maintainable. Before considering the materials on record, we may usefully refer to Section 353 IPC which read as follows:
“353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent that second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out.”
8. In the circumstances, it leaves no doubt that the allegations in the complaint do not conform to the attributes and ingredients of Section 353 of IPC. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and is accordingly allowed. FIR No.59/2018 registered in Vidhana Soudha Police station pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and all further proceedings thereon are quashed.
9. At this stage, Shri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate contends that since this Court has taken a view that FIR is bad in law and quashed the same, any materials seized during the course of investigation shall be returned. He is right in his contention. In the circumstances, respondents are directed to release any or all articles seized during the course of investigation, forthwith.
10. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE AV