Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Irfan vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44949
CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11229 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED IRFAN S/O. MOHAMMED SALI,
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9-4-251/7, 101, 1ST FLOOR,
SOORAJ DIAMOND AZIZUDDIN ROAD,
BUNDAR, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.
2. MOHAMMED SHAFIQ R.A, S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.62, HOSANAGARA ROAD,
MADINA COLONY, GAVTOR,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577426.
3. ABUSALI S/O. HALEEMA,
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by VISHAL
R/AT NO.2-798, MADAKA HOUSE THUMBE,
POST AND VILLAGE BANTWAL,
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:31
+0530
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 219.
4. MOHAMMED IMRAN ULLAL S/O. ABBAS,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18-34-22, AZAR MANZIL,
DHARMANAGARA, ULLALA BALI TOTTU ULLALA,
MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 020.
5. S NIZAMUDDIN S/O. MANSOOR,
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5-105, NEAR DADRIYA MASJID,
ANGARAGUNDI, MANGALURU,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44949
CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025
HC-KAR
D.K. DISTRICT-575 011.
6. MOHAMMED ASIF S/O. ABBAS,
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4-T-17/12, BAJAL NANTHOOR,
SHANITHI NAGARA, MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT 5745 005.
7. MOHAMMED ISMAIL ANSARI
S/O. LATE T. IDINABBA,
AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.203, D.NO.20-7-412/10,
SAMEER RESIDENCY, BADRIYA, 2ND CROSS,
KANDAK, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION,
D.K. DISTRICT.
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SRI. M. MANOHAR KINI S/O. M. MADHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.1-108/1, VISHNU KRUPA HOUSE,
KULASHEKARA POST, MAROLI,
MANGALURU-577 134.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN CC.NO.112/2020 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.136/2019 OF MANGALORE NORTH P.S., D.K. DISTRICT,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHBLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,
148, 447, 427, 454, 380, 511, 188, 109, 120(B) READ WITH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44949
CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025
HC-KAR
SECTION 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF 2nd ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A IN THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
"Heard Sri.B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. M.R. Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent / State.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020 (Crime No.136/2019) of Mangalore North Police Station, D.K. District registered for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 454, 380, 511, 188, 109, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC on he file of the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that qua other accused in the same crime, this Court in Crl.P.No.1946/2024, disposed of on 30.05.2024 has held as follows:
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR "Heard Sri.B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.Thejesh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
4. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 454, 380, 511, 188, 109, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that qua other accused in the same crime, this Court in Crl.P.No.11243/2023, disposed of on 15.12.2023 has held as follows:
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that this Court qua other petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7741/2022 has quashed impugned proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020. In the light of quashment of the proceedings on qua other accused in the same proceeding, I deem it appropriate to grant the same relief to these petitioners as well.
3. This Court in Writ Petition No.7741/2022 has passed the following order:
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 454, 380, 511, 188, 109, 120-B r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.Lethif for the petitioners and the learned HCGP, Sri.K.S.Abhijith for respondent No.1.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.2896/2022, disposed of on 20.06.2022 wherein, this Court held as follows:
"The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.338/2014, registered for offences -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 143, 144, 188 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in this petition stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, which submission is accepted by the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent.
3. In the light of there being no dispute with regard to the fact that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, I deem it appropriate to close the proceedings by following the judgment so rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co- ordinate Bench has held as follows:
"4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWS.5 to 8.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences.
6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.
7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence
punishable under
sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);
or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant.
9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction
10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR "8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-
section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
(Emphasis supplied) Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed.
The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed."
4. Learned HCGP would, though, refute -9- NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not in a position to dispute the position of law as is laid down by this Court (supra).
5. Therefore, the petition deserves to be succeed on the afore-quoted reasons rendered by this Court (supra).
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, stands quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed."
6. The position in law is not disputed by the learned HCGP representing the State.
7. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, stand quashed."
4. The position in law is not disputed by the learned HCGP representing the State.
5. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra)
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44949 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2025 HC-KAR and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.112/2020 pending on the file of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, stand quashed."
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 23