Sri Bana Ravi vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 6040 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Bana Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:19748
                                                       CRL.P No. 5402 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5402 OF 2025
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI BANA RAVI
                         S/O SRI NAGARAJU
                         AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                         R/AT BANDI HALLI VILLAGE
                         HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
                         KUNIGAL TALUK
                         TUMKURU - 572 130.

                   2.    SRI UMESH S. S.,
                         S/O SRI SIDDAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                         R/AT SINGONAHALLI
                         HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
Digitally signed
                         KUNIGAL TALUK
by NAGAVENI              TUMKURU - 572 130.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka          3.    SRI MALLIKARJUNAIAH
                         S/O SRI LATE GANGAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                         R/AT YALAGALAVADI
                         HUTRIDURGA HOBLI
                         KUNIGAL TALUK
                         TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

                   4.    SRI MURUGESH GOWDA @ SWAMY
                         S/O SRI RAMANNA
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:19748
                                   CRL.P No. 5402 of 2025


HC-KAR



     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     R/AT HALUVAGALU VILLAGE
     HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
     KUNIGAL TALUK
     TUMAKURU - 572 130.

5.   SRI CHANDRASHEKAR M. B., @ CHANDRU
     S/O SRI BASAVEGOWDA M. C.,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     R/AT MADUGONAHALLI
     HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
     KUNIGAL TALUK
     TUMKUR - 572 130.

6.   SRI ABDUL HAMEED
     S/O SRI BADESAB
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     R/AT KOTE, KUNIGAL TOWN,
     TUMAKURU - 572 130.

7.   SRI RANGANNA GOWDA
     S/O SRI LATE LAKSHMANA GOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     R/AT BIDANAGERE,
     KUNIGAL TOWN,
     TUMAKURU - 572 130.

8.   SRI BOREGOWDA
     S/O SRI BORAIAH @ BULLAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     R/AT BOREGOWDAPPANA PALYA,
     HUTRIDURGA HOBLI,
     KUNIGAL TALUK,
     TUMAKURU - 572 130.
                            -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:19748
                                 CRL.P No. 5402 of 2025


HC-KAR




9.   SRI MAGADAIAH
     S/O SRI LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ RANGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     R/AT SANTEMAVATHURU VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     KUNIGAL TALUK,
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

10. SRI PRAVEENA
    S/O SRI CHANNAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
    R/AT SIDDEMANNINAPALYA,
    HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
    KUNIGAL TALUK,
    TUMAKURU - 572 130.

11. SRI NARAYANA
    S/O SRI PAPEGOWDA @
    DODDAHONNIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    R/AT BUKKASAGARA,
    YALIYURU POST,
    HUTRIDURGA HOBLI,
    KUNIGAL TALUK,
    TUMAKURU - 572 130.

12. SRI GANGARANGAIAH @ RAJU
    S/O SRI LATE GANGABORAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
    R/AT BOREGOWDANAPALYA,
    KOTTAGERE,
    HULIYURDURGA HOBLI,
    KUNIGAL TALUK,
                             -4-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:19748
                                     CRL.P No. 5402 of 2025


HC-KAR



     TUMAKURU - 572 130.
                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVCHARAN R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
     THE KUNIGAL POLICE STATION,
     KUNIGAL SUB-DIVISION,
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

2.   SRI P.H.GOVINDA RAJU
     S/O LATE HUCHAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     R/AT PADUVAGARE GRAM
     AMRUTHUR HOBLI,
     KUNIGAL TALUK,
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.THEJESH, HCGP FOR R-1)

       THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD
09.08.2021 PASSED IN CC.NO.4749/2021, PENDING BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -5-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:19748
                                        CRL.P No. 5402 of 2025


HC-KAR



CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 13 are at the doors of

this Court calling in question an order dated 09.08.2021,

passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, in

C.C.No.4749/2021 and the entire proceedings therein.

2. Heard Sri R. Shivacharan, learned counsel for

petitioners and Sri P. Tejesh, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing to the petitioners submits

that in identically placed accused, qua accused No.1, this Court

has quashed the proceedings in Crl.P.No.1451/2022 and

connected matter, disposed on 02.06.2023 and therefore,

seeks quashment of the proceedings against these petitioners

on the same findings rendered by this Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:19748

HC-KAR

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would not

dispute the position of law; the identical circumstance and

afore-quoted judgment rendered by this Court.

5. This Court in Crl.P.No.1451/2022 and connected

matter, disposed on 02.06.2023, has held as follows:

"3. Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

Criminal Petition No.1451 of 2022:

3(1). The petitioner claims to be a medical practitioner and is a surgeon in the discipline of Orthopedics. The petitioner enters into public life by contesting Kunigal Assembly Constituency in 2018 general elections, in which, he emerged as a returning candidate. With the onset of COVID-19, certain measures were taken up by Government of India and the State Government to tackle the situation during the pandemic. On 18.06.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., one Ramesh meets with an accident and dies. Though considerable time had lapsed, the Police/1st respondent are alleged to have kept quiet without conduct of post-mortem of the deceased. Therefore, the family members of the deceased as well as other people of the vicinity gathered before the 1st respondent/Police Station and were agitating against the inaction of the 1st respondent in not carrying out post- mortem of the deceased. The petitioner who was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Taluk coming to know of the problem, rushed to the spot and also said to have indicated that in view of the Standard Operating Procedure in force, the people who have gathered at the spot, should disperse or stay there maintaining social distance. In view of the said incident, a complaint is registered on 29-06-2021 by a party worker belonging to the other party. This becomes an offence

NC: 2025:KHC:19748

HC-KAR

against the petitioner for the one punishable under Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner along with 12 others are alleged to have violated the Standard Operating Procedure, which was in force at that point in time. The police after investigation file a charge sheet as well in C.C.No.4749 of 2021. It is those proceedings that are called in question in the subject petition.

Criminal Petition No.5311 of 2022:

3(2) The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.5091 of 2021. The incident that led to registration of crime is the same as is obtaining in the companion petition. The complainant herein is a member of the party belonging to the party to which the petitioner in the companion petition belongs. The incident is the same. Therefore, it would not require further reiteration of what is narrated hereinabove. The offence alleged is also the same as one punishable under Section 5(4) of the Act. The said incident leads to the 2nd respondent registering a complaint and the complaint becoming a crime in Crime No.84 of 2021. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet in C.C.No.5091 of 2021. Therefore, in both these cases charge sheets are filed for offence punishable under Section 5(4) of the Act.

4. To consider the issue in the lis, it is germane to notice Section 5 of the Act. It reads as follows:

"5. Prohibition of Contravention or obstruction of Public Servant.-

(1) No person, institution or company shall contravene or disobey any of the provisions of section 4, rules, regulation or order made under this Act.

(2) No person shall obstruct any officer or any public servant while acting or purporting to act or discharging any duty in pursuance to any provisions of this Act, rules, regulations or orders made there under.

NC: 2025:KHC:19748

HC-KAR

(3) No person shall indulge in any act of violence against a public servant or cause any damage or loss to any public or private property during an epidemic.

(4) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (1), (2) or (3) shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to five years and with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

(5) Whoever, while committing an act of violence against a public servant, causes grievous hurt as defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) to such person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to seven years and with fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to five lakh rupees."

Section 5 (4) of the Act deals with Prohibition of Contravention of Obstruction of Public Servant. It mandates that whoever contravenes any of the provisions under Sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of Section 5 of the Act, he shall be punished in terms of sub-section (4). Therefore, the crux of the provision is that, there should be obstruction of a public servant. There is no claim by any public servant that his movement has been restricted. The entire complaint does not make out any offence with regard to the ingredients of sub-section (1), (2) or (3) of Section 5. Therefore, there being no ingredient of Section 5 of the Act present in the case at hand, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of law against the petitioners in both the cases and would result in miscarriage of justice.

5. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1 in the circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

NC: 2025:KHC:19748

HC-KAR

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19748

HC-KAR

investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the aforementioned case and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, even if the complaints are taken in its true sense, it does not make out ingredients of the offence under Section 5(4) of the Act."

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19748

HC-KAR

In the light of the afore-quoted judgment and the

identical facts, the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 13 are also

entitled for the similar relief.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii) Impugned order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.4749/2021, stand quashed qua the petitioners.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

NVJ