- 1 -
WP No. 18175 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18175 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
AYAZ PASHA @ AYAZ
S/O ABDUL RASHID
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A NO.10/28, GANAGALU ROAD
KANAKANAGAR
HOSKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL 3 562 114.
2.
MAHAMED RABAR BAIG @ RAHBAR
S/O SHAFI AHMED BAIG
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A A.R.EXTENSION
HOSKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL 3 562 114.
3.
SYED IMRAN @ IMRAN
S/O SAYED KHALIL AHMED
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A NO.83, C.K.MANSION
1ST MAIN ROAD
KANAKANAGAR M
HOSKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL 3 562 114.
4.
MUJIBULLA KHAN @ ROHIT
S/O SHAFIULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 18175 of 2022
R/A 1ST CROSS, NEAR PACHUMIYA MASJID
(NEAR NIGHT HOTEL)
HOSKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL 3 562 114.
5.
IMRAN SHARIF @ IMRAN SHARIFF
S/O VAZEER SHARIF
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A KARNATAKA LAYOUT
NEAR AKSA MAJID
HOSKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL 3 562 114.
&PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE BY HOSAKOTE P.S.,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE AT OPP VIDHANA SOUDHA
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU.
2.
RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
POLICE OFFICER
HOSKOTE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU RURAL 3 562 114.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION
482
OF
CR.P.C.,
PRAYING
TO
QUASH
THE
CHARGESHEET DTD 10.03.2020 AT ANNEXURE-C I.E., FINAL
- 3 -
WP No. 18175 of 2022
REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE U/S 153A, 188,
295A
OF
IOC
REGISTERED
AS
CC.NO.968/2020
IN
CONNECTION OF CRIME NO.403/2019 BY HOSKOTE PS AND TO
CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH
THE
COGNIZANCE
DTD
18.03.2020 AT ANNEXURE-D PASSED IN C.C.NO.968/2020
ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.403/2019 HOSKOTE PS U/S 153A,
188, 295A OF IPC, SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE
PRL.
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
JMFC,
HOSKOTE
WHEREIN
PETITIONERS ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question proceedings in C.C.No.968/2020, pending before
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 188 and
295A of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the issue in the lis insofar as Section 153A of the IPC is
concerned, stands covered by the judgment rendered by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
POONAM PANDEY VS. SUMESH reported in (2015) 3
KantLJ 47, wherein, it is held as follows:
- 4 -
<2. Sri K Diwakara, learned advocate,
contended that sanction for prosecution having
not been obtained in terms of Section 196 of
Cr.P.C., the cognizance taken and process
issued, for the offence under Section 295-A is
illegal. Reliance was placed on the decisions of
Shalibhadra Shah and Others Vs. Swami
Krishna Bharati and Another reported in 1981
Crl.L.J. 113 and Acharya Rajneesh Vs. Naval
Thakur and Others reported in 1990 Crl.L.J. He
submitted that the case being covered by the
enunciation of law in the said decisions, the
petitioner is entitled to the relief.
3. Sri C S Prasanna Kumar, learned
advocate appearing for the respondent, on the
other hand, supported the impugned order and
sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. The complaint was filed on 22.5.2012
for the offences punishable under Sections 295,
295-A and 504 of IPC. By an order dated
07.11.2012, cognizance was taken only in
respect of the offence punishable under Section
295-A and summons was issued.
5. In Manoj Rai and others vs. State of
M.P. 1991 (1) SCC 728 prosecution having
been initiated for an offence under Section
295-A of IPC, in the absence of sanction under
Section 196(1) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution was
found to be illegal and was quashed.
6. In State of Karnataka and another vs.
K
Rajashekara
and
another,
reported
in
2010(1) Kar.L.J. 47, the first respondent
therein having filed a private complaint under
- 5 -
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the second
respondent alleging commission of offence
punishable under Section 153-A, 295 and 295-
A of IPC and the Magistrate having directed the
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
by the Station House Officer, Madivala, this
court
was
approached
for
relief.
Having
examined the rival contentions and finding that
the
cognizance
had
been
taken,
without
obtaining the sanction contemplated under
Section 196(1) Cr.P.C., it was held as follows:
<In the instant case however, the offences
alleged are under Sections 153-A, 295 and
295-A of the Indian Penal Code 3 relating to
promoting enmity between different groups of
people and involving deliberate acts outraging
the religious feelings of any class. And as
pointed out by the learned Advocate General,
Section 196(1) provides that no Court shall
take cognizance of any offences under Section
153-A or Section 295-A of the IPC without the
previous sanction of the Central Government or
the State Government.
11. The object of Section 196(1) of the
Criminal Procedure is to prevent unauthorized
persons from intruding in matters of State by
instituting prosecution and to secure that such
prosecutions, for reasons of policy, shall only
be
instituted
under
the
authority
of
Government. Further, the offences are of a
serious and exceptional nature and deal with
matters relating to public peace and tranquility
with which the State Government is concerned.
Therefore,
provision
has
been
made
for
obtaining prior sanction of the Government
before cognizance is taken of any such offence.
- 6 -
It is possible that in a given case the very filing
of a prosecution, after tempers ha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.