Karnataka High Court

Dr Mohammed Umer vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2025

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822
                                                   CRL.P No.200364 of 2025




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                   KALABURAGI BENCH
                        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200364 OF 2025
                                 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                 BETWEEN:


                 1.   DR. MOHAMMED UMER
                      S/O NAZIR ATTAR
                      AGE 35 YEARS
                      OCC. DOCTOR
                      R/O AL-SHIFA, BADI KAMAN
Digitally             BIJAPUR-586101.
signed by
LAKSHMI T        2.   SHRI. AMIT
Location: High        S/O AJIT PATIL
Court of              AGE 37 YEARS
Karnataka             OCC. BUSINESS
                      R/O : 2393, KACHERI GALLI
                      SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590003.

                 3.   SHRI. VIJAYKUMAR
                      S/O MAHAVEER PATIL
                      AGE 42 YEARS
                      OCC. BUSINESS
                      R/O CHANDAN HOSUR
                      RESIDENT OF BHAGYANAGAR
                      BELAGAVI-590006.

                 4.   SHRI. CHETAN
                      S/O TAVANAPPA SATAGOUDA
                      AGE 35 YEARS
                      OCC. PRIVATE JOB
                      R/O MAJAGAON, TAL.
                      BELAGAVI - 590008.
                           -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822
                                CRL.P No.200364 of 2025




5.   SHRI. CHETAN
     S/O MALLAPPA DESAI
     AGE 34 YEARS
     OCC. PRIVATE JOB
     R/O HALAGA, TAL.
     BELAGAVI - 590020.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HATTARKI ZAAHEER ABBAS MUHAMMAD QASIM,
ADV.,)

AND:


1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.

2.   POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
     GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION
     VIJAYAPURA-586101.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP)


     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) U/SEC
528 OF BNSS,        PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.9240/2024 ARISING OUT OF GANDHI
CHOWK PS CRIME NO.359/2008 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SEC 298, 153(A)(B), 120(B), 124(A), R/W SEC
149 OF IPC AND U/SEC 11, 12, 15, 18 OF UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITIES AND PREVENTION ACT 1967 AND AMENDED
ORDINANCE 2004 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST
ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I VIJAYAPURA AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS    ARISING   THERE    FROM    AGAINST    THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 4, 12 TO 15 TO MEETS THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE.    THE HONOURABLE COURT MAY PLEASE TO
ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENTS TO STATE TO
WITHDRAW LOC (LOOK OUT CIRCULAR) IF ANY ISSUED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS & ETC.
                               -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822
                                         CRL.P No.200364 of 2025




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

                        ORAL ORDER

Petitioners/accused Nos.4, 12 to 15 have preferred

this petition praying to quash the entire proceedings in

C.C.No.9240/2024 on the file of the Court of I Additional

Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Vijayapura, arising out of Crime

No.359/2008 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station.

2. On a complaint lodged by the PSI of Gandhi

Chowk Police Station, Bijapur, the aforementioned crime

was registered against unknown culprits for the offence

punishable under Section 298 of IPC and Section 3 of the

Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act,

1981. Investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet

against 15 accused for offences punishable under Section

153(a), 153(b), 124(a), 120(b), 298 r/w 149 of IPC and

Sections 11, 13, 15 and 18 of Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act 1967 and Amendment Ordinance 2004.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822

3. Present petition is filed for quashing of

proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that

accused No.1 who stood trial in S.C.No.37/2010 has been

acquitted vide judgment dated 30.08.2017.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that in

the FIR none of the petitioners are arraigned as accused,

however, while filing charge sheet they are falsely

implicated. Petitioners are totally innocent of the alleged

offences and the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting

accused No.1 has taken into consideration that there is no

sanction as required under law to prosecute the accused

under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and it

is observed that offences under Section 298 r/w 149 of

IPC was not proved.

5. The copy of the judgment passed in

S.C.No.37/2010 dated 30.08.2017 is enclosed to the

petition, wherein it is seen that accused No.1 against

whom the trial was conducted, was acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 153(a), 153(b), 124(a),

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822

120B, 298 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under Section 11,

13 and 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

6. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting

accused No.1 has observed that at the time of filing

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

the major offences, ancillary offences i.e., under Section

298 r/w 149 of IPC cannot be held to be proved. The

learned Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration

that all the mahazar witnesses for Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 as well

as PWs.5 to 10 have not supported the prosecution

version and though treated hostile, nothing was elicited

from their cross-examination.

7. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 against

whom the same allegations are made has been acquitted

after a full-fledged trial. Further, Crl.P No.201248/2024

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822

preferred by accused Nos.7 and 11 was also allowed and

the entire proceedings against them has been quashed.

8. This Court has taken into consideration the

relevant para Nos.21 to 23 of the order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.37/2010 which are

reproduced hereunder:

21. In the instant 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 U/S. 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 120-B and offences U/S. 11, 13 & 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 U/s. 298 R/W Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code. This is an ancillary offence to other 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.

22. 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 Investigating Officer, but all of them have not

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822

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 mahazar as per Ex.P-4. PW-14 is the Investigating Officer 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.

23. Except the Investigating Officer, no other witness has completely supported the prosecution version. Even the evidence of Investigating Officer is not so believable one because he himself lodged the suo-

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.

9. The above judgment passed by the learned

Sessions Judge acquitting accused No.1 has become final

as there is no challenge to the same. The petitioners who

are similarly placed as accused Nos.1, 7 and 11 are

entitled for the relief sought in this petition, as this Court

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1822

finds that proceedings against them is a futile exercise and

will not serve any purpose. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The entire proceedings against the

petitioners/accused Nos.4, 12 to 15 in C.C.No.9240/2024

pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Civil Judge

and JMFC-I, Vijayapura are quashed.