Karnataka High Court
Shri Ramalingareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
C/W
WP NO.29380/2023(GM-RES),
WP NO.430/2024 (GM-RES), CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
IN CRL.P.NO.7533/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI.SIDDARAMAIAH,
S/O SIDDARAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDARAMANA HUNDI,
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
KARNATAKA - 570 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHATHABISH SHIVANNA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA
VANI B 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI,
D/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER, O/A HIGH GROUNDS PS,
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP)
-2-
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.54/2022 DATED 14.04.2022
REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDET HIGH GROUNDS POLICE
STATION FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 143 OF IPC, AND SEC.103 OF
K.P.ACT, 1963 PURSUANT TO COMPLAINT DATED 14.04.2022,
CHARGE SHEET DATED 12.02.2023 AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12763/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE 42ND ACMM, (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES
AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MP/MLA,TRIABLE BY
MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA).
IN W.P.NO.29380/2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI.RANDEEP SINGH SURJEWALA,
S/O LATE SHAMSHER SINGH SURJEWALA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, RAJYA SABHA,
R/O O.495, SECTOR, PANCHKULA,
HARYANA - 134 109.
AND ALSO AT KPCC OFFICE,
QUEENS ROAD, GOVINDA CHETTY COLONY,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 051.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BIPIN HEGDE.,ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.LATHA S SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
ANNEXURE BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD,
BAGALORE - 560 001.
-3-
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI,
D/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER,
O/A HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.04.2022 FILED
BY THE R-2 FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
143 O THE INDIAN PANEL CODE 1860 AND SECTION 103 OF
THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE 8TH ADDL. CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE
CITY, TRANSFERRED IN THE 42ND ADDL (SPL COURT TRIAL
CASES FILED AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MP AND
MLA TRAIBLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA)
IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED (ANNX-A) AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.430/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.M.B.PATIL,
S/O LATE B M PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NOW CABINET MINISTER FOR LARGE & MEDIUM
INDUSTRIES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
BABELESHAWAR CONSTITUENCY,
NEAR MUGALKHOD MATH, SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYPURA DISTRICT - 570 010.
AND ALSO OFFICE AT KPCC OFFICE,
QUEENS ROAD, GOVINDA CHETTY COLONY,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 051.
-4-
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
2. SRI. SALIM AHMED,
S/O AZZEZ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASHIANA", NO.1375, 12TH CROSS,
2ND STAGE, WEST OF CORD ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 086.
AND ALSO, OFFICE AT KPCC OFFICE,
QUEENS ROAD, GOVINDA CHETTY COLONY,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560 051.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.BIPIN HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.LATHA S SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,
HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
ANNEXURE BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD,
BAGALORE - 560 001.
2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI,
D/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER,
O/A HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL.SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTON 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT, IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.04.2022
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES
-5-
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE 1860 AND SECTION 103 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE
ACT 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL CMM
COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY, TRANSFERRED
IN THE 42ND ADDL. (SPL COURT TRAIL CASES FILED AGAINST
SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPS AND MLA, TRAIBLE BY
MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) IN SO FAR
PETITIONERS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
IN CRL.P. NO.12650/2023:
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMALINGAREDDY,
S/O LATE B VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.455/7, 15TH CROSS ROAD,
LAKKASANDRA, BTM LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUMATHI PAULINE M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE
(THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KUM.JAHIDA,
WOMEN POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13.06.2023 PASSED BY THE 42ND ACMM IN C.C.NO.12763/2023
FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 143
-6-
CRL.P.NO.7533/2023
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
CRL.P.NO.12650/2023
OF IPC AND SEC.103 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 HIGH GROUNDS POLICE VIDE
CR.NO.54/2022 AND ETC.,
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS AND WRIT PETITIONS
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
All these Petitions seek quashment of proceedings in
CC No.12763/2023 pending on the file of learned 42nd
ACMM (Special Court for trial of cases against MPs/MLAs in
the State). These proceedings arose from Crime
No.54/2022 registered by the High Grounds Police,
Bengaluru City, against as many as 36 Accused persons
for the offences punishable u/s.143 of IPC 1860 and u/s.
103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
a) On 14.04.2022 at about 8 of the clock (morning),
the Complainant namely Kum.Jahida, a Woman Police
Sub-Inspector whilst on usual rounds received information
that a particular Political Party was going to organize a
protest in public by surrounding the official residence of
the Chief Minister, at Bengaluru. At around 11.30 of the
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
clock, the Accused persons entered the public road
shouting slogans against a then Minister of the
Government to coerce his resignation.
b) The group abruptly walked on the public road
from Madhavanagar to the point of Race View Hotel at
around 12.30 of the clock (afternoon) obstructing the
traffic and disturbing the law & order. Therefore, all they
were taken to preventive custody, and later enlarged on
Police Bail. The said Sub-Inspector lodged the FIR at
around 2.30 of the clock (afternoon) and accordingly
Crime No.54/2022 came to be registered on the very day.
c) The Respondent - Police having investigated into
the matter, filed the Charge Sheet for the offences
punishable u/S.143 of IPC & u/s.103 of KP Act. Learned
Judge of the Special Court below having perused the
Charge Sheet material, has taken cognizance of the said
offences and directed registration of CC No. 12673/2023
vide order dated 13.06.2023. These Petitioners being a
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
few of the accused seek quashment of the said
proceedings.
III. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
a) The ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 143
of IPC and the offence punishable u/s 103 of KP Act are
militantly lacking and the same is demonstrable from the
very Charge Sheet material. This aspect has not been
adverted to by the learned Trial Judge while taking
cognizance of the offences.
b) The allegation that the protest march organized
by the Political Party in question inter alia with the
participation of Accused persons had obstructed the free
flow of traffic on the public road, and disturbed the law &
order, is absolutely false; the said allegation is politically
motivated and that the things are done at the instance of
the rival Political Party that was then holding reigns of the
State.
c) Ours being a constitutionally ordained Democratic
Republic, people and their elected representatives are
entitled to seek removal of Minister(s) on fault grounds
and therefore, resorting to public agitation for that
purpose does not amount to a culpable act, much less
any offence.
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
d) Right to free speech & expression constitutionally
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) includes right to go on
strike even in the public, unless that is regulated by law;
there was no such regulation as on the eventful day; even
going by the Charge Sheet, all the Accused persons were
peaceably launching the protest aimed at generating
public opinion against the then Minister(s) of the
Government; and
(e) The evidentiary material on which Charge Sheet
has been structured by the police does not prima facie
vouch the allegations made against them; in all
probability, even taken at its face value, the proceeding
would not result into conviction for the offences for which
they are sought to be charged.
IV. CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF STATE/POLICE:
(a) On the eventful day, all the Accused along with
others, had organized the protest march on the public
road despite warning by the Police; a mammoth march on
a public road that too during the day time had obstructed
the traffic; the protestors raising slogans in high pitch had
disturbed the law & order. All this happened in
disobedience of police direction.
(b) The provisions of Government Order dated
29.12.2021 promulgated under Section 31 of the KP Act
- 10 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
have been violated. Any right though constitutionally
guaranteed being not absolute, admits reasonable
restrictions imposed by law. The said Government Order
itself is 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the
Constitution and the police had tapped the power
thereunder.
(c) Sub-section 4 of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. makes it
clear that the police do not need permission to investigate
a non-cognizable offence while investigating a cognizable
one, arising from the same facts. Therefore, respondent-
police having investigated into the matter have filed the
Charge Sheet for the offences punishable u/s.143 of IPC
and u/s.103 of the K.P. Act on their own.
(d) There is abundant Charge Sheet material prima
facie vouching the commission of offences alleged against
the accused and therefore, they should face the trial and
come out scathe free. This Court although has power, the
same need not be exercised in these cases since it is open
to the accused to seek their discharge before the trial
Court itself; and,
(e) The arraignment of the police official concerned
as a respondent in all these petitions, lacks bona fide and
is calculated to affect the morale of public servants.
There is absolutely nothing to drag the concerned police
- 11 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
official personally in the challenge laid to proceedings of
the court below.
V. I have heard the learned advocates representing
the petitioners and the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
Respondent- State and the police official. I have perused
the Petition papers; the pleadings & the submissions
made at the Bar show that all they involve same fact
matrix and legal matrix. I have also adverted to relevant
of the rulings cited at the Bar. These petitions, in my
considered opinion, do not merit interference for the
following reasons:
1. AS TO RIGHT OF AGITATION BEING A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:
(a) Our Constitution vide Article 19(1) guarantees to
all citizens the freedom of free speech, free movement
and of freely associating with each other. The right to
agitate in group, partakes the character of amalgam of
these rights. The Chief Architect of our Constitution, Dr.
B.R.Ambedkar used to exhort masses to 'educate, agitate
& organise', as mool-mantra for the transformation of
- 12 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
society. However, none of these rights is and can be
absolute. There are similar rights of others, which too
need to be protected in equal measure, cannot be
disputed. Any civilized jurisdiction as of necessity
recognizes power of the State to regulate the exercise of
these rights by imposing reasonable restrictions. Some
'balancing' of these competing rights, thus needs to be
done, keeping in view a host of factors so that the societal
life smoothly sails, without much friction & turmoil.
Therefore, the Makers of our Constitution have enacted
Article 19(2) providing for this enablement. State can
regulate inter alia these rights, by law.
(b) In MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHAN vs.
UNION OF INDIA, (2018) 17 SCC 324 at para 61, the
following observation appears:
"Undoubtedly, right of people to hold peaceful
protests and demonstrations etc. is a
fundamental right guaranteed under Articles
19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The
question is as to whether disturbances etc.
caused by it to the residents, as mentioned in
detail by the NGT, is a larger public interest
which outweighs the rights of protestors to hold
- 13 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
demonstrations at Jantar Mantar road and,
therefore, amounts to reasonable restriction in
curbing such demonstrations. ... holding of
demonstrations in the way it has been
happening is causing serious discomfort and
harassment to the residents. At the same time,
it is also to be kept in mind that for quite some
time Jantar Mantar has been chosen as a place
for holding demonstrations and was earmarked
by the authorities as well. ...principle of primacy
cannot be given to one right whereby the right
of the other gets totally extinguished. Total
extinction is not balancing. Balancing would
mean curtailing one right of one class to some
extent so that the right of the other class is
also protected".
What is notable in the above is: protests &
demonstrations were held in the place which the
authorities had earmarked for that purpose, and not
on public roads. No research is needed to show that
cities at least during day time, do have thick
movement of people; traffic jams are a matter of
regular scenes.
(c) Public roads, streets & parks do exist primarily
for the benefit of people at large; they are there for being
used for the purpose for which they are ordained.
Certainly, they are not ordained for agitation, as a matter
- 14 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
of course. At the same time, strikes & agitations do take
place on public places such as streets & parks, is also a
hard truth, their object inter alia being the creation of
public opinion or demonstration of detest. In a
democracy, strikes & agitations, if are to be held "Far
From The Maddening Crowd', (to use the title of Thomas
Hardy's book) that is to say only on hilltops, in the middle
of forests or on the sea-shores, their purpose would
largely remain unachieved. It would be more like a great
business sans advertisement. In ANITA THAKUR vs.
STATE OF J&K (2016) 15 SCC 525, at para 8 the
following passage appears:
"We can appreciate that holding peaceful
demonstration in order to air their grievances
and to see that their voice is heard in the
relevant quarters is the right of the people. ...
that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in
a peaceful and orderly manner, without using
offensive language. ... The 'right to assemble' is
beautifully captured in an eloquent statement
that "an unarmed, peaceful protest procession
in the land of 'salt satyagraha', fast-unto-death
and 'do or die' is no jural anathema". It hardly
needs elaboration that a distinguishing feature
of any democracy is the space offered for
legitimate dissent. One cherished and valuable
aspect of political life in India is a tradition to
- 15 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
express grievances through direct action or
peaceful protest...".
(d) The American Supreme Court in STROMBERG
vs. CALIFORNIA 283 US 359, 369 (1931) had said:
"Democracy depends upon the opportunity for free political
discussion". For achieving free trade of ideas and plurality
of opinions, agitative rights assume importance. Our
constitutional command of free speech and assembly is
basic and fundamental and encompasses peaceful social
protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms
treasured in a democratic society. This is one view.
However, there is another too, which is in bit variance.
The proponents of agitational rights claim right to political
protest as a right to freedom of expression and assembly.
However, exercising such a form of freedom can prove
costly for the society. Agitations hinder the regular
movement of ordinary people. Their wide range effects
are succinctly stated by Abu S. Shonchoy & Kenmei
Tsubota of Institute of Developing Economies-JETRO and
New York University in their paper 'Economic Impact of
- 16 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
Political Protests (Strikes) on Manufacturing Firms:
Evidence from Bangladesh':
"...firms lose valuable working hours; factories
miss labor days; poor people lose days' worth of
income; students miss classes; patients miss
doctors' appointments; shipments get delayed;
meetings get postponed, and overall the
economy misses its desierd target. Though
political parties often call hartals in the name of
people, in reality, hartals directly and indirectly
impinge upon ordinary citizens, specially those
belonging to the lower and lower-middle income
brackets of the economy..."
(e) In AMIT SAHANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, (2020) 10 SCC 439, what the Apex Court
observed at para 17 lends credence to the other view
which justifies regulating/restricting of so called
"agitational rights". It runs:
"However, while appreciating the existence of
the right to peaceful protest against a legislation
(keeping in mind the words of Pulitzer Prize
winner, Walter Lippmann, who said "In a
democracy, the opposition is not only tolerated
as constitutional, but must be maintained
because it is indispensable"), we have to make
it unequivocally clear that public ways and
public spaces cannot be occupied in such a
manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy
and dissent go hand in hand, but then the
demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in
designated places alone. The present case was
- 17 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
not even one of protests taking place in an
undesignated area, but was a blockage of a
public way which caused grave inconvenience to
commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the
applicants that an indeterminable number of
people can assemble whenever they choose to
protest...".
Therefore, the jurisprudential support avails in justification
of curtailment of agitational rights and as a result, the
contention of the petitioners to the contrary does not merit
countenance.
2. AS TO CONTENTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEING
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED:
(a) The petitioner-accused hold high positions: one of
them happens to be the Chief Minister of the State; other
two are Cabinet Ministers; one is a sitting Member of
Parliament and the other a sitting Member of Legislative
Assembly of the State. The learned Advocates appearing
for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings against
their clients are politically motivated inasmuch as before
May 2023 Assembly Elections, four of them were in the
Opposition; one of the petitioner's i.e., a Member of
Parliament elected from the Opposition Party. However,
- 18 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
this assertion even if true per se does not prima facie
substantiate the allegations of political vendetta. To draw
such an inference, there needs to be some material on
record, and there is none at this stage. Allegation of the
kind is easily pleaded and seldom established. Apparently
these involve disputed questions of fact, that can be
adjudged by the court below, if at all the case against
them travels to the stage of trial.
(b) The complaint was lodged by none other than a
Police official of the jurisdictional area; this she did after
collecting the intelligence from sources, whilst hovering in
due course, there on duty. The said police official namely
'Kum.Jahida' is arrayed as Respondent No.2 in her
personal capacity in all these petitions sans any
justification. Had she been made a party in her official
capacity, arguably that could not have been faltered. This
court deprecates the practice of arraying officials in their
personal capacity as party-respondents. One cannot ignore
the legislative protection that are justifiably conferred on
- 19 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
the public servants u/s.196 of Cr.P.C. in general and
u/s.169 of K.P. Act on the police officials, in particular.
Permitting their arraignment as such will have a
demoralizing effect on the administration of law & order.
Public servants should be allowed to discharge their duty
without fear or favour. Apparently, what she has done is
in due discharge of her official duty. She lodged the
complaint in her 'best judgment assessment' of the events.
She might have erred arguably. But that is no ground for
arraying her as a Respondent in the personal capacity.
That cannot go with impunity. Costs need to be levied for
this unjustifiable act of Petitioners.
3. AS TO SUBJECT OFFENCES BEING NON-COGNIZABLE
AND COMPETENCE OF THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE:
a) The Police after investigation have filed the Charge
Sheet/Final Report before the jurisdictional Magistrate,
invoking the provisions of Section 143 of IPC and Section
103 of KP Act. The former prescribes a punishment of
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months
or fine or with both. This offence figures in Schedule I to
- 20 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
the Code as a cognizable offence though bailable at the
hands of Magistrate. Therefore, the Police have power &
duty to investigate the same. This they have done by filing
the Charge Sheet. In view of this, the action of the police
cannot be faltered in these proceedings. For the same
reason, the case pending before the court below cannot be
interdicted.
b) True it is, that the provisions of Section 103 of the
KP Act are also invoked in the Charge Sheet. This Section
penalizes the contravention of any order made under
Section 31 of the Act, only with fine which may extend to
Rs.200/- or Rs.500/- as the case may be. The contention
that the Police could not have taken cognizance of the
same since it is a non-cognizable offence, would have
merited countenance, had there been no companion
offence which is cognizable. As already discussed above,
the Petitioners are charged with the commission of offence
punishable u/s 141 of IPC which is statutorily made
cognizable, although learned Magistrate is yet to frame
- 21 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
charge. Learned Addl. SPP is more than justified in
vehemently invoking the provisions of Section 155(4) of
Cr.P.C., which has the following text:
"Where a case relates to two or more offences
of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall
be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences are non-
cognizable."
This provision makes it clear that the Police do not need
permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence while
investigating a cognizable one. The FIR was registered for
the offences punishable u/Ss. 143 & 341 of IPC and
Section 103 of KP Act. The former are cognizable
offences. Of course, Section 341 does not factor in the
Charge Sheet; but that makes no difference, admittedly
Section 143 being still retained there.
4. AS TO GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 29.12.2021:
(a) Sec.31 of K.P.Act delegates power for
promulgating 'orders for regulation of traffic and for
preservation of order inter alia in places'. Accordingly the
subject order has been issued, and that partakes the
character of 'law' as inclusively defined under Article 13(3)
- 22 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
of the Constitution. Its provisions inter alia regulate the
conduct of congregation of persons, assemblies and
processions on the public streets. It is the case of
respondent-police that instructions were issued to the
congregating persons including the accused that they
should not assemble on the public road in question.
However, according to police, these instructions were
disobeyed and that the accused in an unlawful assembly
had prevented the flow of traffic on the said road and had
created law & order problem, too. This, if proved, would
amount to an offence punishable u/s.103 of K.P.Act, of
course, only with fine. Though this is a non-cognizable
offence, why police having investigated the same filed the
Charge Sheet, is already discussed above. Whether these
allegations are true, is a disputed question of facts which
cannot be readily examined by this court.
(b) Learned Addl. SPP is justified in drawing the
attention of court to the following observations in STATE
OF ORISSA vs. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO, (2005) 13 SCC
- 23 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
340. They recognize the limitations on power which these
petitions have tapped. Part of para 8 reads thus:
" ...While exercising powers under the section,
the court does not function as a court of appeal
or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the
section though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to
be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist ...".
He is right in telling that the power to quash the criminal
proceedings be it under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution or u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. should not be permitted
to be resorted to as a matter of course. One has to show
that the initiation or continuance of the impugned
proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of court and
that their quashment would otherwise meet the ends of
justice. The contents of the Charge Sheet coupled with
evidentiary material collected during the investigation lend
prima facie credence to the case of the police that the
matter at the hands of the court below could travel to the
precincts of Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Merely because the offence
- 24 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
is punishable with imprisonment of a short duration or only
with fine or with both, the proceedings cannot be readily
quashed for an askance. A contra view runs counter to the
'quashment jurisprudence' built by the Apex Court over
decades.
(c) What has been observed in a recent case i.e.,
IQBAL vs. STATE OF U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734 assumes
greater significance. Para 7 of the judgment runs:
"7. It is relevant to note that the victim has
not furnished any information in regard to the
date and time of the commission of the alleged
offence. At the same time, we also take notice of
the fact that the investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed.
Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do
not inspire any confidence more particularly in
the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the
alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the
appellants should prefer discharge application
before the trial court under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so
because even according to the State, the
investigation is over and charge-sheet is ready to
be filed before the competent court. In such
circumstances, the trial court should be allowed
to look into the materials which the investigating
officer might have collected forming part of the
charge-sheet. If any such discharge application
is filed, the trial court shall look into the
materials and take a call whether any case for
discharge is made out or not".
- 25 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
5. AS TO LIBERTY OF THE ACCUSED TO SEEK DISCHARGE
AT THE HANDS OF MAGISTRATE:
(a) As already stated above, the police after
investigation have filed the Charge Sheet for offences
punishable u/s.141 of IPC & u/s.103 of the K.P. Act. The
charges are yet to be framed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate. Sec.239 r/w Sec.240 of Cr.P.C. empowers the
Magistrate to frame or not, the charge against the
accused after considering the police report referred to
u/s.173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. The
accused persons have a right to be heard and the
Magistrate can also examine them, if he finds it necessary
vide MINAKASHI BALA vs. SUDHIR KUMAR, 1994 SCC
(Cri) 1181. If there is no ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, the charge must be
considered to be groundless, which is the same thing as
saying that there is no ground for framing the charge
u/s.240. The Magistrate is duty bound to consider the
entire material referred to in Sec.239 prior to his coming
to a decision either way. It is also relevant to note that
- 26 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
the accused at the stage of framing charge can apply for
the summoning of documents which might totally affect
even the very sustainability of the case vide OM
PRAKASH SHARMA vs. CBI, AIR 2000 SC 2335.
(b) Learned Addl. SPP in the light of the law discussed
above, is right in contending that merely because the
petitioners happen to be Ministers/Elected Representatives
of the People, they should not be permitted to land in this
court by invoking constitutional jurisdiction or inherent
jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Code. This court in more or less
similar matters relegated the accused to the Trial Courts
reserving liberty to seek discharge u/ss. 226 & 227 or
u/ss. 239 & 240 of the Code, if grounds do exist therefore.
There is no extraordinary circumstance that warrants this
court leaving the beaten track. It is open to them to
appear before the Magistrate and seek discharge.
'Howsoever high thou art be, law is above you', goes the
saying. Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Sedley in his book FREEDOM,
- 27 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
LAW AND JUSTICE [50th Hamlyn Lectures Series-Sweet
and Maxwell] writes at page 37:
"...The historic decision of the House of Lords in
M v. Home Office, [1994] 1 AC 377 that
ministers of the Crown are answerable to the
courts for breach of their orders has restored
constitutional law to a principled course from
which it had been deviating for over a century...
By a fine irony of history, Dicey's well-known
view that we had no need of a system of
administrative law because everyone from the
postman to the prime minister was governed
by the ordinary law, is more nearly true now
than it was when he wrote it..."
(c) It is told at the Bar that none of the Petitioners
has marked his maiden appearance before the learned trial
Judge all these days. This Court assumes that there might
be some justification for this. Now, the Petitioners being
relegated to the Court below, their petitions deserving
dismissal, they should in all fairness go and stand before
the Special Court and seek discharge from the proceedings
that pend there.
In the above circumstances, I make the following:
- 28 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
ORDER
(1) These Petitions being devoid of merits are liable to
be dismissed and accordingly they are; all & any interim
orders granted therein, stand dissolved;
(2) Each of the Petitioners shall remit to the Registry
of the Court below within two weeks a cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Ten Thousand Rupees) only, payable to the Chief
Minister's Fund, after such deposit is made;
(3) Should any of the Petitioners fail to remit costs as
directed above, the Special Court shall not grant
exemption to such of them, from personal appearance on
any ground whatsoever;
(4) Petitioners shall mark their maiden appearance
personally before the Special Court on the following split
dates, so that the security arrangements that are
ordinarily made because of their positions, do not pose
difficulty to anyone:
(a) In Crl.P.No.7533/2023, Petitioner-
Sri Siddaramaiah to appear on 26.02.2024;
(b) In W.P.No.29380/2023, Petitioner-Sri Randeep
Singh Surjewala to appear on 07.03.2024;
(c) In W.P.No.430/2024, Petitioner No.1-
Sri M.B.Patil and Petitioner No.2- Sri Salim
Ahmed to appear on 11.03.2024;
- 29 -
WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024,
(d) In Crl.P.No.12650/2023, Petitioner-
Sri Ramalingareddy to appear on 15.03.2024.
It is open to the Special Court to alter the above dates
in its discretion should special circumstances such as
Legislative House Session or the like being convened, if the
Petitioners make a request for that purpose.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall influence the
hearing of Discharge Applications if made and that the
Special Court is requested to decide such applications as
expeditiously as possible, subject to what is stipulated
above.
Registry to mark a copy of this judgment to the 2nd
Respondent-Kum. Jahida by Speed Post forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/bsv/cbc
