IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100554 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SHRI. KAVIRAJ URS @ KAVIRAJ URS K.R, @ KAVIRAJ KALLAHALLI RANGARAJU, S/O. RANGARAJU, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. # 2819, 12^TH MAIN, D BLOCK, NEAR JOTHI BAKERY, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH, TQ AND DIST. BENAGLURU-560001, NOW RESIDING AT. 6^TH CROSS, NEAR BALANJANEYA TEMPLE, M.J.NAGAR, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583201.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by B K THROUGH HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION, MAHENDRAKUMAR R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: HIGH COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.05 DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.

12:54:33 +0530

2. SMT. ARATHI G D/O. LATE VEERANNA AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O. CMC HOSAPETE, D.NO. 604, DEVINAGAR, CHITHWADAGI, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-580001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.

SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN CC NO. 818/2020 BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.01/2020 OF HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION, BALLARI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 188, 353, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, 1860 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is being prosecuted for offenses punishable under Sections 188, 353, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The prosecution’s case is that the petitioner, in violation of a government order, used a plastic banner containing his photograph in public places instead of a cloth banner. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, and the learned Magistrate, upon accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offenses.

3. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations against the petitioner prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offenses and that their veracity should be determined during trial. He contended that the matter cannot be adjudicated in this petition and sought dismissal of the petition.

4. The issue of whether cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 188 of IPC can be taken based on a police report was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2184/2024. In that case, where cognizance was taken under Sections 186 and 353 of IPC, the Court ruled that taking cognizance of an offense under Section 186 of IPC was illegal unless preceded by a written complaint from a public servant, as mandated under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). A written complaint by a public servant is a prerequisite before a court can take cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 186 of IPC.

5. To invoke Section 353 of IPC, it must be established that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against a public servant in the execution of official duties, intending to prevent or deter such public servant from performing their duty. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner used criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duties. The essential elements required to constitute offenses under Sections 353, 504, and 506 of IPC are conspicuously absent.

6. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.818/2020 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete is hereby quashed.

iii) Pending I.As. do not survive for co