SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 46273

- 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top