Karnataka High Court
Sri. Krishnappa M.T vs State Of Karnataka By Turuvekere Police on 1 August, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
CRL.P No. 11336 of 2023
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. 11336 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KRISHNAPPA M. T.,
S/O SRI THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT VIDYANAGARA
TURUVEKERE TOWN
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 227.
2. SRI GANGADHAR
S/O MAYANNAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT KOLALA VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH 3. SRI KUSHAL KUMAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT BAITARAHOSALLI VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4. SRI RAJU @ BALEKAYI RAJA
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT DANDINASHIVARA VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
CRL.P No. 11336 of 2023
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 215.
5. SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O MAYANNAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MANGIKUPPE VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 213.
6. SRI NAGARAJU
S/O CINEMA TENT RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT BANASANDRA VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 212.
7. SRI YOGESHA
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT VENKATAPURA VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 212.
8. SRI PRAKASHA
S/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT GOTTIGERE VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
9. SRI JAFRULLA
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT BAVIKERE VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TOWN AND TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
CRL.P No. 11336 of 2023
10. SRI SWAMY
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT AREMALLENAHALLI
GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 215.
11. SRI R.MADHU
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT INDIRANAGARA
TURUVEKERE TOWN AND TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
12. SRI SHIVANANDA
S/O KONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT SOMENAHALLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.
13. SRI PUNITH KUMAR
S/O GAVIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT BHUVANAHALLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
14. SRI SOMASHEKAR
S/O HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT OBBENAGASANDRA
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
CRL.P No. 11336 of 2023
15. SRI NAGARAJU
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT SANGALPURA
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
16. SRI A.C.SATISHA
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT AREHALLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
17. SRI VIJAY KUMAR
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MAVINAKERE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.
18. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MAVINAKERE
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.
19. SRI CHETHAN
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT SHAKTHINAGARA
TURUVEKERE TOWN AND TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
CRL.P No. 11336 of 2023
20. SRI NAGENDRA
S/O DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT JIRAYTI GONI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
21. SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT JIRAYTI AMMASANDRA
TURUVEKERE TOWN AND TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
TURUVEKERE POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI PRITHAM
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
TURUVEKERE POLICE STATION
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B. N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.08.2020,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
CRL.P No. 11336 of 2023
PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
TURUVEKERE IN C.C.NO.189/2020 (ARISING OUT OF NIL PCR
NO. /2020 AND VIDE GSC NO.334/2020) TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 51(b) OF DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005 THEN TRANSFER MADE TO THE
SPL.COURT FOR CRIMINAL CASE RELATED TO ELECTED MPs
AND MLAs VIDE SPL.C.C.NO.1362/2021 AND THEREAFTER
TRANSFER OF THE SAME AND NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE 42ND A.C.M.M BENGALURU VIDE C.C.NO.30810/2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court calling in question order
dated 24-08-2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Turuvekere and now pending on the file of the 42nd
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.30810 of 2021.
2. Heard Smt Nandini B, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B N, learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the issue
in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by this
Court in Crl.P.No.7702 of 2023 disposed on 06-10-2023.
4. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would not
dispute the same, as no notice as required under Section 60 of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has been issued to the
petitioners.
5. This Court, in Crl.P.No.7702 of 2023, in terms of its
order dated 06-10-2023, 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 the said provisions. Section 51 of
the Act deals with punishment for obstruction and read 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,
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
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 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.
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. 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 has to
be taken for an offence punishable under Section 51 of
the Act, a person who is arrayed as accused should be
given a notice of not less than 30 days, in the manner
prescribed. 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:30524
"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
ExecutiveOfficer of the State Authority;
(f) in the case of a District Authority, the
Chief Executive Officer of the State Authority."
The Rule mandates that a notice under Section
51(b) of the Act by any person should be alleged and his
intention to make a complaint shall be delivered too or
left at the office or one of the following. The ingredients
are narrated from (a) to (f). Therefore, there is
prescription under the Rules for what action should be
taken under Section 60(b) of the Act.
8. On the bedrock of the aforesaid principals, the
case at hand requires to be noticed. The incident takes
place on 12.04.2021 and the crime is registered on
23.04.2021 for the offence punishable under Section
51(b) of the Act. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance
of the offence on 26.04.202. The order of the learned
Magistrate taking cognizance reads as follows:
"The present private complaint is filed U/s
200 of CRPC R/w Sec.60(a) of DM Act of 2005, by
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
the PSI of Turuvekere Police Station. The
complainant is present.
The complainant is the public servant who is
filed the present complaint u/s 200 of CRPC for the
offence Punishable Under Sec.51(b) of DM Act of
2005 and Sec.269 of IPC.
In view of the present declaration of Covid-
19 guideline, the PSI of concerned police station is
authorized to file a private complaint for
disobedience of provisions of DM Act of 2005.
Therefore, the present complaint is filed by the PSI
of complainant police as provided under Sec.60(a)
of DM Act 2005.
Perused the same and having satisfied with
the material to proceed, cognizance is taken for the
offence punishable Under Sec. 51(b) of DM Act of
2005 and Sec.269 of IPC.
The present complaint is in writing and made
by the public servant. So as provided Under
Sec.200(a) of CRPC the sworn statement of the
public servant is to be dispensed.
In view of the same recording of sworn
statement of the complainant is hereby dispensed in
this case.
Office to register as CC and issue summons
to the accused r/by:17-07-2021."
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, ostensibly the said procedure is not
followed by the learned Magistrate, which is in
contravention of provisions of law i.e. Section 60 of the
Act and Rule 3 of the said Rules."
In view of the issue in the lis standing covered by the judgment
of this Court as afore-quoted on all its fours, I deem it
appropriate to pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30524
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 24-08-2020 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere in
C.C.No.189 of 2020 and now pending on the file
of 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru in C.C.No.30810 of 2021 stands
quashed qua the petitioners.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
CT:SS
