Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramalinga Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
CRL.P No. 6695 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6695 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMALINGA REDDY,
S/O VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
MLA, BTM LAYOUT CONSTITUENCY,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
2. SRI. RIZWAN ARASHED,
S/O. RQ-ARASHED,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
MLA, SHIVAJINAGARA CONSTITUENCY,
BENGALURU
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI BY THROUGH H. GATE P. S.,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THIMMARAYAPPA. C,
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED NOT KNOWN,
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
H. GATE P. S.,
KARNATAKA - 5.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
CRL.P No. 6695 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.3169/2022 INITIATED BY THE I
RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HONBLE 42ND ACMM COURT
(SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS
WELL AS FORMER MPs/MLAs TRIABLE BY THE MAGISTRATE IN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
P/US/ 51(B) NDMA ACT 2005 AND SEC.188 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manjunath N.D., appearing
for the petitioners and Sri. Jagadeesh B.N., learned Addl.SPP
appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for
the following prayers:
"1) Quash the Criminal Proceedings against the
petitioners in C.C. No.3169/2022 initiated by the 1st
respondent before this Hon'ble 42nd ACMM Court (Special
Court for the Trial of Cases against sitting as well as
former MP's/MLA's trialable by the Magistrate in the state
of Karnataka), Bengaluru for the offence punishable under
Section 51(B) of NDMA Act 2005 and Section 188 of
Indian Penal Code.
2) Issue any order or directions deem fit to the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity."
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.3432/2023, disposed of on 07.07.2023, wherein this
Court has held as follows:
"7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the
learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the
offence under Section 51(b) of the Act. To consider the
said issue, it is germane to notice certain provisions of the
Act. Section 51 of the Act deals with punishment for
obstruction and reads as follows:
"51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.--(1) Whoever,
without reasonable cause-- --(1) Whoever, without
reasonable cause--"
(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central
Government or the State Government, or a
person authorised by the National Authority or
State Authority or District Authority in the
discharge of his functions under this Act; or
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given
by or on behalf of the Central Government
or the State Government or the National
Executive Committee or the State
Executive Committee or the District
Authority under this Act, shall on
conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year or with fine, or with both, and
if such obstruction or refusal to comply
with directions results in loss of lives or
imminent danger thereof, shall on
conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51
to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down
what will constitute an offence in terms of
obstruction of the functions under the Act,
false claim for relief, misappropriation of
relief material or funds, issuance of false
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
warning, failure of an officer to perform
the duty imposed on him under the Act
without due permission or lawful excuse,
or his connivance at contravention of the
provisions of the Act. The clauses also
provide for penalties for these offences.
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 51(b) of the Act directs that whoever would
refuse to comply with any direction given by or on behalf
of the Government, as the case would be, become an
offence under the Act.
8. Section 60 of the Act deals with cognizance for
the offences and reads as follows:
"60. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by--
(a) the National Authority, the State Authority,
the Central Government, the State
Government, the District Authority or any
other authority or officer authorised in this
behalf by that Authority or Government, as
the case may be; or
(b) any person who has given notice of
not less than thirty days in the
manner prescribed, of the alleged
offence and his intention to make a
complaint to the National Authority,
the State Authority, the Central
Government, the State Government,
the District Authority or any other
authority or officer authorised as
aforesaid."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 60(b) mandates that, if cognizance is to be taken
for an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, a
person who is arrayed as accused should have been given
a notice not less than 30 days in the manner prescribed.
9. The prescription is in terms of the Rules.
Rules, i.e. the Disaster Management (notice of alleged
offence) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 of the said Rules, reads as
follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
"3. Notice of alleged offence and intention to make
a complaint .--A notice under clause (b) of section
60 of the Act by a person, of the alleged offence
and his intention to make a complaint shall be
delivered to, or left at, the office of one of the
following--
(a) in the case of the Central Government, except where
the complaint relates to a railway, the Secretary
incharge of the concerned Ministry or the Department in
that Government;
(b) in the case of the Central Government where the
complaint relates to a railway, the General Manager of
that railway;
(c) in the case of State Government, the Secretary
incharge of the concerned Department in that
Government;
(d) in the case of the National Authority, the Secretary
or, if there is no Secretary, the Additional Secretary, of
the National Authority;
(e) in the case of a State Authority, the Chief Executive
Officer of the State Authority;
(f) in the case of a District Authority, the Chief Executive
Officer of the State Authority."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Rule mandates that a notice under Section 60(b) of
the Act by any person should be issued on/of his intention
to make a complaint, and that shall be delivered to the
person against whom complaint is said to be made. The
manner of issuance and delivery are narrated from (a) to
(f). Therefore, there is prescription under the Rules as to
the action to be taken under Section 60(b) of the Act.
10. On the bedrock of the aforesaid mandate
under the Act and the Rules, the case at hand requires to
be noticed. The incident takes place on 04.01.2021,
around 10.30 a.m. and the crime is registered on
04.01.2021 for the offence punishable under Section
51(b) of the Act and Section 188 of the IPC. The learned
Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on
25.01.2022. The order of the learned Magistrate taking
cognizance reads as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
"Perused the compliant. Complainant is a Public
Servant. Hence, recording of Sworn Statement is
dispensed with as contemplated u/s.200 of Cr.P.C.
cognizance is taken for the offence punishable u/s.51(b)
of NDA Act.
I have perused the documents produced by
the complainant and considered the allegation
made in the complaint. The allegation are
supported by documents and if allegations are not
denied the same will lead to the conviction of the
accused.
There are sufficient materials to issue process
against the accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. Register the case as CC
2. Issue summons against accused no.1
to 9 for the offence punishable u/s.
51(b) of NDA Act.
3. Call on: 26.02.2021."
(Emphasis added)
The learned Magistrate prior to taking cognizance ought
to have noticed the rigor of Section 60(b) as to whether a
notice has been issued to the accused in terms of Rule 3
of the said Rules (supra). Ostensibly, the mandate under
the Act or the Rules is not followed by the complainant
and it is not even noticed by the learned Magistrate prior
to the taking of cognizance. It is therefore, contrary to
law.
11. In the light of it being contrary to law, is resultantly
rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability of it, would
lead to its obliteration.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, following
ORDER
I. Criminal petition is allowed.
II. The order dated 25.01.2021 passed in
C.C.No.3169/2022 on the file of the 42nd
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru stands quashed qua the
petitioner."
NC: 2024:KHC:30427
4. In the light of the order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons
aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.3169/2022
pending on the file of the 42nd Addl.CMM
Court (Special Court for the Trial of Cases
against sitting as well as former MP's/MLA's
trialable by the Magistrate in the state of
Karnataka), Bangalore, stand quashed qua
the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
CT: BHK
