Aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the

petitioner herein in CC No.355/2016 pending on the file of the

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Virajpet, Kodagu, the

instant petition is filed.

2.

Petitioner is accused no.22 in CC No.355/2016.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2015, 'Tippu

Jayanthi' was being celebrated at Virajpet. The same was

opposed by Hindu Organisations and it resulted in skirmishes

between Hindus and Muslims in Virajpet. The Tahsildar

immediately issued prohibitory orders under Section 144 of

Cr.P.C. and the same was announced through loudspeakers.

However, the crowd did not disburse and the nuisance was

continued. In the process, there were stone pelting and the

Deputy Superintendent of Police sustained minor injuries and

he filed a complaint in this regard. He also named eight

- 3 -

persons in the said complaint and mentioned that there were

several other persons along with said eight persons who

indulged in stone pelting. Based on the said complaint, FIR

was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation

and in the process of investigation, one of the police constables

who was on duty has stated before the Police that in spite of

promulgating prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.,

the crowd did not disburse and he has named few persons who

were in the crowd and the petitioner herein is also named to be

part of the said crowd. On the basis of the said statement, in

CC No.355/2016 the petitioner has been made as accused

no.22 and charged with the offences punishable under Sections

332, 188, 149, 143 and 341 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same,

the instant petition is filed.

4.

The case of the petitioner is that only on the statement of

police constable by name Ramesh (CW-10), charge sheet has

been filed against him and even presuming that the allegations

in the charge sheet are held to be true, the same do not

constitute offences as alleged against him. It is further

- 4 -

submitted that in case of an offence under Section 188 of IPC,

a complaint requires to be filed either by the Officer issuing

such promulgation which is alleged to have been violated by

the accused or the Officer above his rank and in the case on

hand, the same is not done. On the said grounds, it is prayed

that the charge sheet laid against the petitioner herein be

quashed.

5.

Learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

the

respondent though opposes quashing of the proceedings

against the petitioner herein does not dispute the fact that

charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner only upon the

statement made by the police constable Sri Ramesh (CW-10)

and that the prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.

were promulgated by the jurisdictional Tahsildar and no

complaint has been made against the petitioner herein for

violation of the same by the Tahsildar or a person above his

rank.

- 5 -

6.

As stated above, the petitioner herein has been charged

with the offences punishable under Sections 332, 188, 149, 143

and 341 of IPC. Section 332 of IPC deals with voluntarily

causing hurt to deter pubic servant from his duty. It is not the

case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein indulged in

stone pelting which caused injury to the complainant or he was

part of the unlawful assembly which indulged in stone pelting.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was part of

the unlawful assembly which did not disburse in spite of

promulgation of prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.

Thus, the proceedings against the petitioner for committing the

offence under Section 332 of IPC has to be quashed.

7.

Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful

restraint. It is not the case of the prosecution that the

petitioner wrongfully restrained any person. For that reason,

the offence alleged under Section 341 of IPC against the

petitioner is also liable to be set aside. Section 188 of IPC

deals with disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a