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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.SANDESH
HANMAGOUDA AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P/200377/2019



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200377/2019

BETWEEN:

1.

HANMAGOUDA

S/O GANGAPPA MANKANI

AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE

R/O BANGARGOND VILLAGE

TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA

2.

HAMJISAB

S/O MALIKSAB SOMALAPUR

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER

R/O MAROL, TQ. HUNGUND

NOW R/AT MUDDEBIHAL

TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPUR

3.

GANGADHAR S/O MALKAJAPPA HADPAD

AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER

R/O YARAZERI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL

DIST. VIJAYAPUR

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH MUDDEBIHAL POLICE STATION

NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH-585105

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)

R

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDDEBIHAL DATED

13.07.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.167/2018 (CRIME NO.107/2018

MUDDEBIHAL

POLICE

STATION)

TAKING

COGNIZANCE

AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 171H OF IPC AND SECTION 3 OF THE

KARNATAKA OPEN PLACES (PREVENTION OF DISFIGUREMENT)

ACT, 1981.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

ON

12.11.2021,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT,

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the order of the Civil

Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, dated 13.07.2018 passed

in C.C.No.167/2018 (Crime No.107/2018 of Muddebihal

Police Station) taking cognizance against the petitioners

3

for the offences punishable under Section 171H of IPC

and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention

of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 (for short ‘the Act’).

3.

Factual matrix of the case is that the

complaint is lodged by one Basavaraj stating that he

was deputed for election duty on the eve of assembly

elections during the year 2018. He was performing

flying squad duty in Muddebihal Assembly constituency

along with other officials by forming six teams on

20.04.2018. It is also alleged that a candidate

belonging to Indian National Congress had come to

Tahsildar office, Muddebihal, for filing nomination papers

and some vehicles had accompanied him to Tahsildar’s

office displaying stickers containing symbol and flag of

Indian National Congress. It is further alleged that he

along with his team members inspected the said vehicles

and noticed that stickers displaying palm symbol of

Indian

National

Congress

was

displayed

on

the

4

motorcycle and flags of Indian National Congress were

tied to Bolero vehicle and Tata Ace vehicle. It is also

alleged that the same was done without any permission

and they have violated the Election Code of Conduct.

Hence, the case has been registered, the police have

investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would vehemently contend that first of all,

Act invoked i.e., the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention

of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 is not applicable to

Muddebihal and the said Act is applicable only in respect

of particular places. Unless the same is notified in

respect of particular place of Muddebihal, the police

ought not to have initiated proceedings against the

petitioners under Section 3 of the Act. The learned

counsel also submits that the respondents have also

invoked Section 171H of IPC. The complaint is not filed

under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., but the case has been

5

registered against the petitioners and based on the

police report, cognizance was also taken. The learned

counsel also would submit that when non-cognizable

offence is invoked, it requires permiss

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top