Karnataka High Court
Mahammed Ismail Ansari vs State By on 6 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44944
CRL.P No. 12901 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. 12901 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMED ISMAIL ANSARI
S/O. D. INDINABBA,
AGE 31 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO. 203,
SAMEER RESIDENCY, BADRIYA 2ND CROSS,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MANGALORE NORH P S,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPP VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALROE - 560 001.
2. BERENDRA, POLICE CONSTABLE,
CPC 2378, AGE: 31 YEARS, MANGALORE EAST POLICE
Digitally signed by STATION, MANGALURU.
VISHAL NINGAPPA ...RESPONDENTS
PATTIHAL
Location: High (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN IMPLICATION IN
CC.NO.988/2020 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.135/2019 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MANGALORE NORTH P.S AT ANNEXURE-D,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
504, 506, 353, 332, 120(b),109 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE
FILES OF JMFC (II COURT) MANGALURU, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER
IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.33 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINALPETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44944
CRL.P No. 12901 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.33, qua the other accused, the Co-ordinate Benche of this Court has quashed the proceedings. I deem it appropriate to notice the order passed by this Court.
"Heard Sri.B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.Thejesh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.988/2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 353, 332, 120B, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.6314/2022, disposed of on 29.07.2022, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, disposed on 18.06.2021. The learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the position that the issue stands covered by -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44944 CRL.P No. 12901 of 2025 HC-KAR the aforesaid judgment, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court 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 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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44944 CRL.P No. 12901 of 2025 HC-KAR (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 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. 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44944 CRL.P No. 12901 of 2025 HC-KAR 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)
11. 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. 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) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.988/2020 pending on the file of the II JMFC Court, Mangalore, stand quashed."
2. Learned HCGP would not dispute the said position.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:44944 CRL.P No. 12901 of 2025 HC-KAR
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.988/2020 pending on the file of the II JMFC Court, Mangalore, qua the petitioner stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 9