IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.12820 OF 2021 (GM RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri Kaleem Sabir,

S/o Ashfaq Ahmed,

Aged about 29 years,

Advocate,

R/at #57, BTM 1^st Stage,

9^th Main, Behind Saint Thomas

School, B.G.Road,

Bengaluru-560029.

...Petitioner

(By Sri Tejas N, Advocate)

AND:

1.

State of Karnataka by

High Grounds Police,

Bengaluru-560001.

(Represented by Learned

Government Advocate)

2.

Sri Avinash G.S.,

S/o Shivaraju,

Aged about 32 years,

R/at 6^th Main, Near Rabin Theatre,

Kengeri Upnagara,

Bengaluru-560060.

3.

Inspector General of Police,

Police Headquaters No.2,

Nrupathunga Road,

Bengaluru-560001.

:: 2 ::

4.

Sri Bheemsen Ghatge,

Police Sub-Inspector,

High Grounds Police Station,

Millers Road, Bengaluru-560001.

...Respondents

(By Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP for R1, R3 & R4;

R2 - served)

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

praying

to

quash

the

proceeding

initiated

in

C.C.No.14036/2021 in the file of the Hon9ble 8^th

Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru, which is arising out of Crime

No.15/2020 of High Grounds Police, Bengaluru as er

Annexure-C as an abuse of process of Law.

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary

hearing this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri Tejas N, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri B.J.Rohith, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3 and 4.

Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but

there is no representation on his behalf.

2.

Petitioner

is

accused

No.7

in

C.C.No.14036/2021

on

the

file

of

the

VIII

:: 3 ::

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru.

3.

The second respondent was working as

an assistant for the police for towing the vehicles

parked

in

no

parking

zones.

The

specific

allegation is that at 3.00pm on 15.02.2020, near

Devaraj Urs Bhavan, Thimmaiah road, the police

saw some two wheelers being parked at a no

parking zone. They gave an announcement using

loud speakers for removing the vehicles from the

no parking zone, but nobody came. They waited

for sometime and then lifted the vehicles bearing

Reg.No.KA-47/Q-1273, KA-47/J-7161, KA-03/JW-

9633, KA-03/EQ-5545, KA-35/R-7668, KA-41/Q-

6824, KA-05/KC-7333, KA-51/HE-1699 and KA-

04/JH-2596 from that place to the police station.

4.

On the same day, at about 06.30pm, a

person came to the police station and seeing the

vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-47/Q-1273 being there,

:: 4 ::

raised his voice and identified himself to be an

Advocate and demanded for release of his vehicle.

When the second respondent told him that the

Assistant Sub Inspector should come and release

the vehicle, he took videograph of all the vehicles

parked in front of the police station and made a

call to some persons and asked them to come

there. Sometime later a few persons came to that

place. The second respondent asked all those

persons to speak to the Assistant Sub Inspector-

Narayanaswamy, who had come to that place at

that time. Those persons said that since they

were all Advocates, they would not speak to

anybody and picked up quarrel with the police and

assaulted the second respondent. In this regard,

FIR came to be registered at 22.30 hours for the

offences punishable under Sections 283, 323, 353

and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

:: 5 ::

5.

Sri Tejas N, learned counsel for the

petitioner

submits

that

the

petitioner

is

an

Advocate and actually, his vehicle had not been

lifted by the police on 15.02.2020. Just because

his vehicle was found to be parked at some

distance from the place from where other vehicles

were lifted, the police appear to have included his

vehicle in the FIR. He refers to spot panchanama

to argue that in the panchanama, there is no

mention

of

veh