The court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and the legal requirements under the Cr.P.C. for conducting processions and initiating criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. I.A.No.1/2019 has been filed by the respondent State seeking for vacating the interim order of stay granted on 22.09.2017. The stay order was in force till the next date of hearing. Subsequent thereto the order was not extended. Therefore, the order lapsed on the very next date i.e., on 10.11.2017. Hence, there would be no need to consider I.A.No.1/2019, since there is no interim order is in force. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2017 of Khadebazar P.S. Crime No.71 of 2016 pending before the JMFC-III Court, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 103 and 109 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 insofar as accused No.2 is concerned.

3. The Police Inspector filed a complaint alleging that there was a request to grant permission for Ram Navami procession from Ambedkar Garden via Kakatives road, Ramlingkindi Galli to Homa Chowk on 26.03.2016 to the Police Commissioner, Belagavi. The permission for the said procession was refused on the ground that the area in which the procession was to pass through was a very sensitive area and it would be very difficult for the Police to maintain law and order on 02.04.2016.

4. The Ram Navami Committee represented by its members more particularly the petitioner herein filed W.P.Nos.103238-39 of 2016 before this Court, which came to be allowed with stringent conditions. It was made clear to the petitioner, who had represented the said Ram Navami Committee that there should be no violation of any of the conditions. An affidavit of undertaking was also submitted by the petitioner towards the same.

5. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 15.04.2016 at about 3:00 p.m. the procession had started from the Ambedkar Garden with about 500 members and contrary to the orders of this Court, a tractor with DJ sound system was also part of said procession and thereby violated the condition No.6 issued by this Court. The procession caused several traffic jams and despite the Police requesting and their office bearers of the committee did not heed to the said request and though the procession was required to be completed at 5:00 p.m. as ordered by this Court, the procession went on until 8:00 p.m. On the basis of the above, a complaint was filed stating that on account of the improper conduct of the procession block on the main road of the Belagavi, several people were struck down in traffic jam, which would amount to wrongful confinement of the general public, there was also tremendous inconvenience caused to the general public.

6. Shri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there is no case made out against the petitioner herein and the petitioner was not even the part of procession and his name is not found in the complaint filed. Therefore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. He further submits that it is only to overcome the requirement of obtaining prior permission in terms of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. that cognizable offence like that Section 341 of Cr.P.C. has been falsely included in the complaint. Hence, he submits that if the offence under Section 34 of IPC is eschewed, the other offences being non-cognizable, permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. ought to have been obtained, which admittedly has not been obtained. Therefore, the investigation being without such permission has to be quashed. He further submits that no charges to be framed against this petitioner-accused No.2. He further submits that the requirement under Section 212 of Cr.P.C. is also violated in terms of the charge against the petitioner does not include particularly as to the time and place of the alleged offences.

7. Learned HCGP per contra would submits that CWs.14 to 16 have categorically stated as regards the offences having been committed by the