Karnataka High Court
Bhaskar Prasad @ B R Bhaskar Prasad vs State By Cottonepete Ps on 11 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19401 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. BHASKAR PRASAD @ B.R. BHASKAR PRASAD
S/O LATE.P.RAMAPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT, LOHITNAGAR, NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 562123
IN CHARGE SHEET ITS MENTIONED AS DSSO
PRESIDENT BANGALORE CITY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADDAM R. MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. TAHIR. ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. STATE BY COTTONPETE PS
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally
signed by OFFICE AT, HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
CHANDANA OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA
BM BENGALURU - 560001
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka 2. MR. BALARAJU B PI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT, COTTONPET POLICE,
STATION, COTTONPET MAIN ROAD,
KANAKAPURA,
BENGALURU -560053
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. TO QUASH THE
COGNIZANCE ORDER 05/01/2023 PASSED IN CC NO. 331/2023
AT ANNEXURE-D ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.192/2022
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 COTTONPETE POLICE
UNDER SECTION 341, 143, 149, 188 OF IPC AND 103 OF KP
ACT, 1963 PENDING IN THE FILES OF HON'BLE XXXI ADDL.
CMM COURT, BANGALORE, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER
ARRIVED AS ACCUSED NO.5 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the
following relieves:
“1. To Quash the cognizance order 05/01/2023
passed in CC no. 331/2023 at Annexure-D
arising out of Crime No.192/2022 registered by
the Respondent no.1 Cottonpete Police under
section 341, 143, 149, 188 of IPC & 103 of KP
Act, 1963 pending in the files of HON’BLE XXXI
ADDL. CMM Court, Bangalore, wherein the
petitioner arrived as accused no.5 in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. To quash the Charge sheet dated
15/12/2022 at Annexure-C, which is numbered
in CC no. 331/2023 arising out of Crime
No.192/2022 registered by the Respondent
no.1 Police Cottonpete section 341, 143, 149,
188 of IPC & 103 of KP Act, 1963, pending in
the files of HON’BLE XXXI ADDL. CMM Court,
Bangalore, wherein the petitioner arrived as
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
accused no.5 in the interest of justice and
equity
3. To pass any other orders which the court
deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience”.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate
that respondent No.1 – Police registered the
impugned FIR against the petitioner in Crime
No.192/2022 dated 11.12.2022 for offence
punishable under Sections 341, 143, 149, 188 and
103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. In pursuance
of the same, the Police Authorities filed a charge
sheet which is currently pending in C.C.No.331/2023
for offence punishable under Sections 341, 143, 149,
188 of IPC and 103 of the KP Act. In this context, it
will be relevant to state that insofar as offences
punishable under Section 188 is concerned, taking
cognizance of the said offence is impermissible in
view of Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and the same
has to be done by the competent authority making
the complaint as held by the co-ordinate Bench of
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
this Court in Rajashekharananda Swamiji Vs.
State of Karnataka in W.P.No.13328 of 2018:
(Annexure – E) :
“JUDGMENT/ORDER
K.S.Mudagal, J. – “Whether the proceedings
in C.C.No.3660/2016 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate First Class (III Court), Mangalore,
Dakshina Kannada against the petitioners are
sustainable in law? is the question involved in
this case.
2. On the basis of the complaint (Annexure-B)
filed by A.K.Rajesh, Police Inspector,
Mangalore Rural Police registered the first
information report in Crime No.428/2014
(Annexure-C) against the petitioners and
others for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188,
332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of
the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and
Loss of Property Act, 1981 (‘KPDLP Act’ for
short).
3. On investigation, Mangalore Rural Police
charge sheeted the petitioners and others for
the offences punishable under Sections 143,
144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC
and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act.
In the charge sheet the petitioners are shown
as accused Nos. 1 and 12.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as
follows:
The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore
city promulgated the prohibitory order
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of
08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of
five or more persons in Mangalore city.
The accused persons violating such
prohibitory order organized procession
consisting 2000 persons belonging to
Hindu Organization. When the
complainant and his colleagues tried to
prevent the accused from proceeding with
the procession advising that, that is likely
to create communal tensions, the accused
obstructed the police from discharging
their duties, crashed the barricades
erected at the scene of offence, damaged
the police vehicles and caused injuries to
CWs.5 to 8.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate
by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of
the offences punishable under Sections 143,
144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC
and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act
and summoned the accused to face trial for the
said offences.
6. The petitioners seek quashing of
Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground
that the prime offence was under Section 188
of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking
cognizance of such offences, except upon the
complaint as required under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are
without jurisdiction.
7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is
the main offence. The other offences flow from
that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the
Court to take cognizance of such offence
unless in accordance with the procedure laid
down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as
follows:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful
authority of public servants, for offences
against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under
sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to
commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;”
8. Reading of the above provision makes it
clear that to take cognizance there should be a
written complaint and such complaint should
be filed either by the officer issuing such
promulgation order or the officer above his
rank. In the case on hand, as per the
complaint itself, prohibitory order under
Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the
Commissioner of Police and not the
complainant.
9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines
complaint as allegations made orally or in
writing to the Magistrate with a view to the
Magistrate taking action on such complaint
under the Code. Only on such complaint, the
Magistrate can take cognizance under Section
190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure
prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
be followed. Therefore the first information
report, charge sheet and the order taking
cognizance on such charge sheet are without
jurisdiction.
10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get
vitiated only so far as the offence under
Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment
in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy,
(1981) 2 SCC 185, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“8. We agree with the view expressed by
the learned Judge and hold that in cases
where in the course of the same
transaction an offence for which no
complaint by a Court is necessary under
Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and an offence for which a
complaint of a Court is necessary under
that sub-section, are committed, it is not
possible to split up and hold that the
prosecution of the accused for the
offences not mentioned in Section
195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be upheld.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Reading of the above judgment makes it
clear that if the offences form part of same
transaction of the offences contemplated under
Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible
to split up and hold that prosecution of the
accused for the other offences should be
upheld. Therefore, the entire complaint, first
information report, charge sheet and the order
taking cognizance are liable to be quashed.
The petition is allowed.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. The impugned first information report,
complaint, the charge sheet and the
proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby
quashed”.
3. Further under identical circumstances in Fairoz Ulla
Shariff @ Shariff and others Vs. State By
Lashkar PS and another in W.P.No.5415 of
2022, this Court held as under (Annexure – F):
“ORDER
Heard Sri.Mohammed Tahir, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.
K.S.Abhijith, the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1.
2. The petitioners are before this Court
calling in question the proceedings in Crime
No.103/2019, registered for offences
punishable under Sections 188, 141, 143, 145
and 147 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the issue in the
case at hand stands covered by the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Crl.P.No.2896/2022, disposed of on
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
20.06.2022, wherein this Court has held as
follows:
“2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the issue in this
petition stands covered by the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.13328/2018, which
submission is accepted by the learned
HCGP appearing for the respondent.
3. In the light of there being no dispute
with regard to the fact that the issue
stands covered by the judgment rendered
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I
deem it appropriate to close the
proceedings by following the judgment so
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as
follows:
4. The case of the prosecution in brief
is as follows:
The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore
City promulgated the prohibitory order from
6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and
prohibited assembling of five or more
persons in Mangalore city. The accused
persons violating such prohibitory order
organized procession consisting 2000
persons belonging to Hindu Organization.
When the complainant and his colleagues
tried to prevent the accused from
proceeding with the procession advising
that, that is likely to create communal
tensions, the accused obstructed the police
from discharging their duties, crashed the
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
barricades erected at the scene of offence,
damaged the police vehicles and caused
injuries to CWS.5 to 8.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, the
Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took
cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148,
153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a)
and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned
the accused to face trial for the said
offences.
6. The petitioners seek quashing of
Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground
that the prime offence was under Section
188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars
taking cognizance of such offences, except
upon the complaint as required under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole
proceedings are without jurisdiction.
7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of
IPC is the main offence. The other offences
flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.
bars the Court to take cognizance of such
offence unless in accordance with the
procedure laid down therein. Section
195(1)(a) reads as follows:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of
lawful authority of public servants,
for offences against public justice
and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under
sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to
commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of
the public servant concerned or of
some other public servant to whom he
is administratively subordinate;”
8. Reading of the above provision makes it
clear that to take cognizance there should be
a written complaint and such complaint
should be filed either by the officer issuing
such promulgation order or the officer above
his rank. In the case on hand, as per the
complaint itself, prohibitory order under
Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the
Commissioner of Police and not the
complainant.
9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines
complaint as allegations made orally or in
writing to the Magistrate with a view to the
Magistrate taking action on such complaint
under the Code. Only on such complaint, the
Magistrate can take cognizance under Section
190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure
prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has
to be followed. Therefore the first information
report, charge sheet and the order taking
cognizance on such charge sheet are without
jurisdiction.
10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D
get vitiated only so far as the offence under
Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“8. We agree with the view expressed
by the learned Judge and hold that in
cases where in the course of the
same transaction an offence for which
no complaint by a Court is necessary
under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and an offence for
which a complaint of a Court is
necessary under that sub-section, are
committed, it is not possible to split up
and hold that the prosecution of the
accused for the offences not mentioned
in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure should be upheld.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Reading of the above judgment makes
it clear that if the offences form part of same
transaction of the offences contemplated
under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not
possible to split up and hold that prosecution
of the accused for the other offences should
be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint,
first information report, charge sheet and the
order taking cognizance are liable to be
quashed. The petition is allowed.
The impugned first information report,
complaint, the charge sheet and the
proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby
quashed.”
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.388/2014 on the
file of the II Additional Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Nanjangud, Mysore, stand
quashed.”
4. The learned HCGP would not dispute
the aforesaid order and the fact that it covers
the case at hand on all its fours.
5. In the light of the order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for
the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR dated 19.12.2019 i.e., Crime
No.103/2019, the charge sheet dated
06.08.2020 and the proceeding in
C.C.No.688/2020 pending on the file of the
Hon’ble J.M.F.C. (II Court), Mysore, stand
quashed”.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
the undisputed fact that Section 188 IPC has been
invoked as against the petitioner, I am of the view
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025
HC-KAR
that taking cognizance of the impugned proceedings
in the absence of a private complaint as defined
under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and
the same deserves to be quashed.
5. In Rajashekharananda Swamiji‘s case (supra)
(Annexure – E), this Court has also come to the
conclusion that upon quashment of proceedings for
offence punishable under Section 188, the
proceedings with relation to the remaining offences
also deserve to be quashed as could be seen from
para 7 to 11 of the said order.
6. Under these circumstances, even the impugned
proceedings with relation to the remaining offences
also deserve to be quashed.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. This petition is hereby allowed.
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25755
WP No. 19401 of 2025HC-KAR
ii. The impugned proceedings under
Sections 341, 143, 149, 188 and 103 of
the Karnataka Police Act, are hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGEGSR
List No.: 5 Sl No.: 15
[ad_1]
Source link