Karnataka High Court
Saleem And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 19 November, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
CRL.P No. 201248 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201248 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SALEEM S/O SULEMAN MADIWALE
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 3979/B1, KAKTIVEES GALLI,
BELAGAVI - 590001.
2. MR. ABBASALI S/O FAKURDDIN YARNAL
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO. 4267, JALGAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI - 590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ZAHEERABBAS M. HATTARKI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI AND:
Location: High
Court Of 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Karnataka
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585103.
2. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
CRL.P No. 201248 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.167/2024
ARISING OUT OF GANDHI CHOWK PS CRIME NO. 359/2008
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 298, 153-A,
153-B, 124-A, R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND U/S 11, 13, 15, 18
OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND PREVENTION ACT, 1967 AND
AMENDED ORDINANCE 2004 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE
OF Ist ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA
AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS. 7 AND 11.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
The entire proceedings in S.C.No.167/2024 on the
file of Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur,
arising out of Crime No.359/2008 of Gandhi Chowk Police
Station, Vijayapur is sought to be quashed in this petition
preferred by accused Nos.7 and 11 respectively under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. The ground on which quashment is sought, is
that accused No.1 against whom the trial was held in
S.C.No.37/2010 has been acquitted vide judgment dated
30.08.2017.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that the petitioners are totally innocent of the
alleged offences and while acquitting accused No.1, the
learned Sessions Judge has held that there is no sanction
as required under law in respect of offences under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the offence
under Section 298 r/w 149 of IPC is also not proved.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader
has contended that accused No.1 was acquitted after a full
fledged trial, whereas the petitioners have absconded
themselves and therefore, the proceedings against them
cannot be quashed.
5. FIR was registered on 04.12.2008 against
unknown persons, for the offence punishable under
Section 298 of IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open
Places (Prevention Of Disfigurement) Act, 1981. The
allegations in the FIR are that the accused have pasted
pamphlets/hand bills on the pan-shop with writings "Our
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
struggle for final and complete supremacy of" and
"Involves Babri Masjid Too".
6. The charge sheet was filed against accused
Nos.1 to 15 for the offences punishable under Sections
298, 153 (a) (b), 120 (b), 124 (a) r/w 149 of IPC,
Sections 11, 13, 15 and 18 Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act 1967 and Amendment Ordinance 2004.
7. Split up charge sheet was filed against accused
Nos.7, 8, 10 and 11. In the meanwhile, accused No.1
stood trial in Sessions case No.37/2010. After a full
fledged trial, learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated
30.08.2017 was pleased to acquit accused No.1 of the
offences punishable under Sections 153 (a), 153 (b), 124
(a), 120 (b), 298 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 11, 13 and
15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and
Amendment Ordinance 2004.
was committed to the District and Sessions Judge,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
Vijayapur, on 07.08.2024. The material on record reveals
that the said accused are on bail.
9. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting
accused No.1 has observed that at the time of filing of
charge sheet or subsequently, investigation officer has not
obtained sanction of the Central Government or State
Government or District Magistrate as required under law
and when the Court could not have taken cognizance of
other major offences, ancillary offences i.e., under Section
298 r/w 149 of IPC is also not proved. The Court has also
taken into consideration that all the mahazar witnesses for
Exs.P.2 to 4, as well as PWs.5 to 10 have not supported
the prosecution version and though treated hostile,
nothing was elicited in their cross-examination.
10. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 21 to 23 of
the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
"In the instance case the Investigating Officer at
the time of filing of charge sheet or subsequently has not
obtained any sanction of the Central Government or State
Government or District Magistrate and not produced in
this case. Hence, this Court holds that the offences under
Sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 120-B and offences under
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
Sections 11, 13, and 15 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 were not cognizable before
committal of the matter and even after committal of the
matter because no sanction is produced. The only
remaining offence is under Section 298 r/w Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code. This is an ancillary offence to the
offences. When the Court could not have taken
cognizance of other major offences, then the Court has to
opine that ancillary offence is also not proved. With this
background the evidence of witnesses is to be looked
into.
PWs-2 to 4, 12 and 13 are said to be mahazar
witnesses for Exs.P-2 to 4; PWs-5 to 10 are said to be the
witnesses who have given statements before
Investigation Officer, but all of them have not supported
the prosecution version. Hence, learned Public Prosecutor
considered them as hostile, but nothing was elicited in
their cross-examination to disbelieve their version in
examination-in-chief. PW-11 is the witness for who sue-
motto lodged complainant and also conducted the entire
investigation. PW-15 was not examined in this case, but
he was examined in a connected S.C.No.36/2010 as PW-
15. He was cited as CW-11 in this case, but my learned
predecessor has put copy of said evidence in
S.C.No.36/2010 in this case.
Except the Investigation Officer, no other witness
has completely supported the prosecution version. Even
the evidence of Investigation Officer is not so believable
one because he himself lodged the sue-motto complaint
and then he himself commenced the investigation and
completed the investigation. This is not proper in
accordance with law. Hence, viewed from any angle, this
Court holds that prosecution has failed to prove the
offences alleged against accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, Points No.1 to 7 are answered in the
negative. "
11. The above judgment passed by the learned
Sessions Judge acquitting accused No.1 has became final,
as there is no challenge to the same. The petitioners
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8617
namely accused Nos.7 and 11 stand on the same footing.
There cannot be any better evidence then what has been
led against accused No.1. Continuation of proceedings
against the petitioners will be a futile exercise and will not
serve any purpose. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the
inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court and to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 11 pending on
the file of Court of Ist Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in S.C.No.167/2024,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
AMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33, CT: PS
