Karnataka High Court
Dr H D Ranganath vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DR. H.D.RANGANATH
S/O SRI DR. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
KUNIGAL CONSTITUENCY
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
NO.758, 3RD STAGE, 10TH MAIN
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BK
BENGALURU - 560 079.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SHIVCHARAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THE KUNIGAL POLICE STATION
KUNIGAL SUB-DIVISION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
-2-
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
2. MR. P.H.GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE HUCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT PADUVAGARE GRAM
AMRUTHUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.4749/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., KUNIGAL, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 5(4) OF THE
KARNATAKA EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT AND SECTION 143, 149
OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-C, ANNEXURE-B AND ANNEXURE-A.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. JAGADISH B. N,
S/O D.NAGARAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ADVOCATE
RESIDING AT KHB COLONY
KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.
2. DEVARAJU
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PRESENT: GRAMAPANCHAYATH MEMBER
R/AT BEERUGANAHALI VILLAGE,
YEDIYURU HOBLI,
-3-
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 142.
3. NARASHIMAMURTHY C.N,
S/O NARASHIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT CHANNENAHALLY,
C.S.PURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
4. THIMMEGOWDA @ PAPU
S/O GOVINDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
YEDIYURU HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 142.
5. PANDU G.S,
S/O SHIVARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
YEDIYURU HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 142.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIKYATH B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE.
-4-
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
2. D.NARAYANA
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT BEGURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TOWN - 572 130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH B SHETTY., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI R.SHIVCHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.5091/2021 (CR.NO.84/2021) PENDING BEFORE THE
HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, KUNIGAL.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The incident that led to registration of crime in both these
cases being common, the cases are taken up together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri R.Shivcharan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022 and
respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022,
Sri B. Vikyath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022 and respondent No.2 in
Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022 and Sri Mahesh Shetty,
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
learned High Court Government appearing for respondent No.1
in both the petitions.
3. Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as
follows:
Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022:
3(1). The petitioner claims to be a medical practitioner
and is a surgeon in the discipline of Orthopedics. The petitioner
enters into public life by contesting Kunigal Assembly
Constituency in 2018 general elections, in which, he emerged
as a returning candidate. With the onset of COVID-19, certain
measures were taken up by Government of India and the State
Government to tackle the situation during the pandemic. On
18.06.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., one Ramesh meets with an
accident and dies. Though considerable time had lapsed, the
Police/1st respondent are alleged to have kept quiet without
conduct of post-mortem of the deceased. Therefore, the family
members of the deceased as well as other people of the vicinity
gathered before the 1st respondent/Police Station and were
agitating against the inaction of the 1st respondent in not
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
carrying out post-mortem of the deceased. The petitioner who
was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Taluk coming
to know of the problem, rushed to the spot and also said to
have indicated that in view of the Standard Operating
Procedure in force, the people who have gathered at the spot,
should disperse or stay there maintaining social distance. In
view of the said incident, a complaint is registered on
29-06-2021 by a party worker belonging to the other party.
This becomes an offence against the petitioner for the one
punishable under Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Epidemic
Diseases Act, 2020 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner along
with 12 others are alleged to have violated the Standard
Operating Procedure, which was in force at that point in time.
The police after investigation file a charge sheet as well in
C.C.No.4749 of 2021. It is those proceedings that are called in
question in the subject petition.
Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022:
3(2) The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are
knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.5091 of 2021. The incident that led to
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
registration of crime is the same as is obtaining in the
companion petition. The complainant herein is a member of the
party belonging to the party to which the petitioner in the
companion petition belongs. The incident is the same.
Therefore, it would not require further reiteration of what is
narrated hereinabove. The offence alleged is also the same as
one punishable under Section 5(4) of the Act. The said incident
leads to the 2nd respondent registering a complaint and the
complaint becoming a crime in Crime No.84 of 2021. The
Police after investigation file a charge sheet in C.C.No.5091 of
2021. Therefore, in both these cases charge sheets are filed
for offence punishable under Section 5(4) of the Act.
4. To consider the issue in the lis, it is germane to notice
Section 5 of the Act. It reads as follows:
"5. Prohibition of Contravention or
obstruction of Public Servant.-
(1) No person, institution or company shall
contravene or disobey any of the provisions of
section 4, rules, regulation or order made under this
Act.
(2) No person shall obstruct any officer or any
public servant while acting or purporting to act or
discharging any duty in pursuance to any provisions
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
of this Act, rules, regulations or orders made there
under.
(3) No person shall indulge in any act of
violence against a public servant or cause any
damage or loss to any public or private property
during an epidemic.
(4) Whoever contravenes any of the
provisions of sub-section (1), (2) or (3) shall on
conviction be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three months, but
which may extend to five years and with fine, which
shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, but
which may extend to two lakh rupees.
(5) Whoever, while committing an act of
violence against a public servant, causes grievous
hurt as defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) to such person, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months, but which may
extend to seven years and with fine, which shall not
be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend
to five lakh rupees."
Section 5 (4) of the Act deals with Prohibition of Contravention
of Obstruction of Public Servant. It mandates that whoever
contravenes any of the provisions under Sub-sections (1), (2)
or (3) of Section 5 of the Act, he shall be punished in terms of
sub-section (4). Therefore, the crux of the provision is that,
there should be obstruction of a public servant. There is no
claim by any public servant that his movement has been
restricted. The entire complaint does not make out any offence
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
with regard to the ingredients of sub-section (1), (2) or (3) of
Section 5. Therefore, there being no ingredient of Section 5 of
the Act present in the case at hand, permitting further
proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process
of law against the petitioners in both the cases and would result
in miscarriage of justice.
5. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1 in
the circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court has
held as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
aforementioned case and the facts obtaining in the case at
hand, even if the complaints are taken in its true sense, it does
not make out ingredients of the offence under Section 5(4) of
the Act.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petitions are allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.4749 of 2021 pending
before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Kunigal,
concerning Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022,
stand quashed.
(iii) The proceedings in C.C.No.5091 of 2021 pending
before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 1451 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 5311 of 2022
Kunigal, concerning Criminal Petition No.5311 of
2022 stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nvj
CT:SS
