Dr. Siddaiah S vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 7226 Kant

                             1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7580 OF 2023
BETWEEN

DR. SIDDAIAH S.
S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 43/4/1
MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT,
KEMPAPURA HEBBALA
BENGALURU - 560 024                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
 FOR SRI RAJASHEKAR S , ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    BY R T NAGAR POLICE STATION,
    REPRESENTED BY SPP,
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    BANGALORE - 560 001

2 . H M VISHWANATHA
    S/O SHADAKSHARIAH H.M.
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
    WORKING AS SECRETARY,
    TARALABALU KENDRA
    3rd MAIN, 2nd BLOCK,
    R T NAGAR,
    BENGALURU - 560 032
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
 MS. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                   2




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.37805/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ACMM
BENGALURU, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 7 OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION
OF MISUSE) ACT 1988, PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.161/2021 OF R.T. NAGAR POLICE AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE
COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 5.10.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.37805/2022 arising out of Crime

No.161/2021 registered by the R.T. Nagar police station

and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse),

Act, 1988 (herein after referred as 'Act') now pending on

the file of XXXII Additional CMM, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri.Sandesh Chouta,

learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and

Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel for the respondent

No.2.

      3.     The   case     of   the    petitioner   is   that   the

respondent    No.2   one     Vishwanath,      Secretary     of   the

Taralabalu Kendra have filed the first information on

9.8.2021, before the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru.

Inturn the same was referred to the R.T. Nagar police

through DCP-North. Accordingly, FIR has been registered.

It is alleged by the informant, that the Taralabalu Kendra

is a religious institution established and maintained by

Sri.Taralabalu Kendra Jagadguru Brihanmath, Sirigere,

Chitradurga District and the petitioner was working as

Honorary Secretary from 2004 to 2021. The executive

committee of the institution reconstituted and the

informant is the present Secretary of the Taralabalu

Kendra. After he assumed charge, he came to know that

the petitioner was being previous Secretary staying in the

Kendra, was possessing a pistol since 2017 by furnishing

address of the Taralabalu Kendra and had kept the pistol in

the premises of the Kendra, which is a religious institution,

by possessing and preserving pistol in the premises which

is prohibited and is an offence under Section 3(c) and 4 of

the Act which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act.

Keeping the pistol is prohibited in this religious instituion.

A notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.02.2020, to

surrender the pistol to the police, as it was not allowed to

carry a weapon into the religious institution, but he has

refused to surrender. A complaint also was lodged by the

Mutt Secretary on 19.3.2020 to the R.T. Nagar police, but

no action was taken and hence she has lodged complaint

to the Commissioner of police, but so far no FIR has been

registered and no investigation took place. Hence, he has

filed another complaint to the Commissioner of police for

taking action. After registering the complaint, the police

registered the FIR and the same was challenged by the

petitioner by filing Crl.P.No.6395/2021, before this court

for quashing the FIR, which came to be dismissed on

8.3.2022 and permitted the police to investigate the

matter. Accordingly, now police have investigated the

matter and filed the charge sheet. Once again the

petitioner is before this court by challenging the charge

sheet.

4. Sri. Sandesh Chouta, learned senior counsel for

petitioner has strenuously contended that there was

dispute between the senior pontiff and junior pontiff and

due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this case. The secretary also filed one more case before

the Mysuru police, Saraswathipura, for the offence

punishable under Section 406 of IPC, which was registered

in Crime No.96/2021, where the police have filed 'B final

report'. He further contended, the petitioner obtained

license for possession of the pistol. Accordingly, the police

verified the spot where he has given the address of the

Mutt. Thereafter, report has been sent by the RT Nagar

police. Accordingly, the license has been granted, as per

the Arms Act. If a license was given to an address, he

must keep the arms at the address given by the police

under a safe locker and if he removes the arms, without

the knowledge of the police, it will be an offence under the

Arms Act 1959. The license has been granted under

Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959. Even the police could

have rejected the license, if the conditions was not fulfilled

under Section 14 of the Arms Act and when any law had

prohibited for keeping the possession of the pistol or arms,

there is no contravention of the provisions of Section 3, 4

and 5 of the Arms Act. Therefore, the license has been

duly granted by the police authority, such being the case,

keeping the pistol in the address given at the institution,

there is no violation and there is no prohibition under the

law.

5. Learned senior counsel also contended as per

Rule 10 of the Arms Rule 2016, the prescribed form is

provided and place has been identified and license is given.

Therefore, it cannot be said the petitioner violated any law

and in accordance with Arms Act, he is in possession of the

Arms Act and the address given to the police has been

identified by the place of depositing the pistol. Such being

the case, the petitioner cannot shift the place of safe

locker, which will be an offence under the Arms Act.

Therefore, he has contended, the possession is in

accordance with the Arms Act. Therefore, no offence has

been committed by the petitioner, in order to face the trial

for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act.

6. Learned senior counsel also contended various

pontiff in Karnataka are having possession of pistol by

obtaining license, the police will provide license to VIPs as

well as the pontiffs. Therefore, there is no offence

committed by the petitioner. He further contended that

the Arms Act is Central Act, which permits the person to

possess the arms with license, whereas the State Act

prohibits, both the acts must be read harmoniously. If any

law prohibits, the police could have refused the license but

they had granted the license which is not prohibited under

the Arms act. Whereas, it was also not prohibited in the

State Act. Therefore, there is no ingredient to attract any

of the offences. Therefore, prayed for quashing the

criminal proceedings.

7. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondent No.2, seriously objected and contended that

the license was obtained for possession, whereas sections

3 and 3(c) and 4 of the Act prohibits carrying the weapons

into the religious institutions, which is punishable under

Section 7 of the Act and knowingly he had kept weapons

for more than 4 years. Inspite of directing the petitioner

to surrender the weapon to police, he has not surrendered.

The complaint was also filed to Commissioner of Police,

they have not registered the case. The petitioner by using

the influence obtained the license without permission of

the Management or the pontiff, he is only a Manager of the

institution and he himself will not permit the others to

bring weapons to the institution, such being the case, he

cannot carry the weapon inside the religious institution.

There are eye witnesses to the case, where they have

categorically stated, the petitioner brought the weapons

inside the institution, if at all any plea of ignorance, that

has to be considered after the trial and he can plead for

defence in the trial. Therefore, learned senior counsel

contended, there is no material produced to show the

petitioner is a junior pontiff and he has misappropriated

the property of the Mutt. A case is already pending in

Mysore court. The 'B final report' has been challenged.

The petitioner shown address of the institution as

residential house, there is a prohibition in the Act for

keeping or carrying the weapon inside the religious

institution, which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act.

Therefore, matter required for trial, court cannot quash the

proceedings at this stage.

8. Learned senior counsel also contended the

petitioner ought to have approached Magistrate for

discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., where the

documents available before the Magistrate to verify, but

those documents were not part of the charge sheet.

Therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

9. Learned High Court Government pleader also

objected the petition and adopted the arguments of

learned senior counsel for respondent no.2

10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also

relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 14

SCC in case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs Vijaya Satardekar

and Ors another judgment reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568

in case of State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi.

Also in another case, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335

in case of State of Haryana and Ors Vs Bhajanlal and

Ors.

11. Learned senior counsel for the respondent relied

upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

(2010) 11 SCC 607 in case of K.Neelaveni Vs State

represented by Police and others.

12. I have perused judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court, relied by both the counsel in respect of quashing

the criminal proceedings, filing discharge applications

either under sections 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C and also the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlals' case

stated supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlals'

case at para 102(7) categorically held if "a criminal

proceeding is manifestly attended with a mala fide and/or

where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking the vengeance on the accused

and with a view to spite him due to private and personal

grudge", the court can quash the criminal proceedings.

Likewise, in the K.Neelaveni's case Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held the accused shall approach the Magistrate

for seeking discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, instead

of getting quashing the criminal proceeding under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., by keeping the principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in all the case. Now come to the

case of the prosecution, which reveals, as under:-

13. It is an admitted fact, the petitioner was the

Honorary Secretary of the Taralabalu Kendra, which is a

religious institution. It is also an admitted fact, the

petitioner has obtained the license from the police

authorities for possessing the pistol by showing his address

said to be residing at 3rd floor in Tarala Balu Kendra, RT

Nagar, Bengaluru. The copy of the license also produced

by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, wherein it

clearly reveals, the police authorities had granted the

license for possessing or keeping the weapon, pistol in the

address shown in the application filed by the petitioner. It

is also revealed from the records, there was dispute arisen

between the petitioner and the management of the

religious institute and a fresh committee was constituted

by removing the petitioner as Secretary from the Trust. It

is also an admitted fact, previously the petitioner

approached this court for quashing the FIR by filing the

Crl.P.No.6395/2021 and this court by detailed order

dismissed the petition on 08.03.2022, permitted the police

to investigate the matter. Accordingly, the police

investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The

contention of the petitioner is that, he has obtained the

license from the police department by filing necessary

application and the same was granted to him. Accordingly,

he has obtained the license for keeping the pistol for self

protection, as per the documents produced by the

petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner shown the address

as Taralabalu Kendra, 3rd main road, 2nd Block, RT Nagar,

Bengaluru. He was also permitted to keep cartridges and

pistol in the said address, the license was issued by the

competant authority under the Arms Act. Every year he

has got renewed the same. Learned senior counsel has

contended that as per Form Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the Rule 4,

he has complied all the requirements and obtained the

license. The Section 13 of the Arms Act, empowers the

authority for issuing license. As per 14 of the Arms Act,

the authority can even refuse the license on the ground, if

where such license is required by a person, who the

licensing authority has reasons to believe to be prohibited

by Arms Act or by any other law for the time being in

force, from acquiring, having in possession or carrying any

arms or ammunition. On reading of the section 14

(1)(b)(i)(1) of Arms Act, it clearly prohibits for issuing

license, if any other law prohibits for acquiring or having

possession and carrying of ammunition. Now coming to

the provisions of the present Act, Section 3 and 4 of the

Act reveals as under;

"3. Prohibition of use of religious institutions for certain purposes.--No religious institution or manager thereof shall use or allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution--

(a) for the promotion or propagation of any political activity; or

(b) for the harbouring of any person accused or convicted of an offence under any law for the time being in force; or

(c) for the storing of any arms or ammunition; or

(d) xxxx

(i) xxxx

4. Restrictions on carrying arms and ammunition into a religious institution.--No religious institution or manager thereof shall allow the entry of any arms or ammunition or of any person carrying any arms or ammunition into the religious institution:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to--

(a) the wearing and carrying of a Kirpan by any person professing the Sikh religion; or

(b) any arms which are used, as part of any religious ceremony or ritual of the institution as established by custom or usage."

14. On bare reading of Section 3 (c) of the Act,

there is a prohibition for storing ammunition in the

Religious Institutions and as per Section 4 of the Act, there

is restriction for carrying the arms into the Religious

Institutions, where it categorically defines no Religious

Institution or Manager shall allow the entry of any arms or

ammunition or of any person carrying any arms into the

Religious Institutions and the said restriction is not

available to the Kirpan wearing by the Sikh and carry

ammunition for their religious ceremony as per their

customs. Therefore, when the petitioner being himself was

the Manager, he shall not allow any person carrying any

arms or ammunition into the Religious Institution. There is

a bar for carrying the weapons to the institution, such

being the case, he is also not exempted from carrying any

weapons to the Religious Institutions and to keep weapon

in the Religious Institutions. Therefore, the restriction for

carrying the weapons or arms is not only to the other

persons, but also to the Manager and other person in the

Institution, except by obtaining any permission regarding

any threat to life of the said person.

15. Herein this case, the petitioner has admittedly

not obtained any permission from the President of the

Religious Institutions and there is no threat to his life for

getting an armed force like a gun man for the purpose of

the protection, but he has taken the gun as self protection

in the year 2017, without the knowledge and permission of

the head of the institution. If at all, the petitioner claims

he is ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he

has obtained the license from the police and used it, but

'the ignorance of law is not an excuse' to the petitioner

and the petitioner already committed the offence under

Section 3 (c), 4 of which is punishable under Section 7 of

the Act. Such being the case, he has to face the trial and

whatever defense available, he can plead the same in the

Trial Court. That cannot be a ground for quashing the

criminal proceedings and charge sheet against him under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

16. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has

rightly contended the license etc., produced in the petition

were all not forming part of the charge sheet and the

license and other permission given by the police can be

used as defense and confront to the Investigating Officer

in the cross examination and for the purpose of

appreciation, the Trial Court may consider the documents

of the defense. But the fact remains that the petitioner

being Manager or Honorary Secretary, he has stored and

carried the weapon to the Religious Institutions, which is

prohibited under Section 3(c) and 4 of the Act.

17. That apart, there are eye witnesses and they

have given statement before the police that, they saw the

petitioner while bringing the gun to the proceedings and

into the institution and the same came to the knowledge

of the complainant, very recently. Therefore, the complaint

came to be filed before the Commissioner of police, but no

action was taken and prior to that a complaint was given

to R.T. Nagar police and they have not registered FIR.

Subsequently, one more complaint was filed before the

Commissioner of Police on 9.8.2021. There is reference

available in the complaint regarding filing of the complaint

and inspite of the request made by the mutt for

surrendering the weapon, the petitioner has not

surrendered the same and kept in his possession for

almost one year. Thereafter, it was surrendered, even

while surrendering the weapon, the petitioner has stated

he wants to sell the arms until finding the purchaser, he

wants to deposit the weapon to the police station. Even

otherwise, he is not ready to say he cannot carry the

weapon into the Religious Institution. Though he has

surrendered, but he has stated, for the purpose of selling

the weapon, he is surrendering and not stated he has been

ousted from the institution by the Management of the

Tarala Balu Kendra. Therefore, the grounds urged by the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be

acceptable. On the other hand, there are no sufficient

materials placed on record for framing of charge. Hence, I

hold petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV