Karnataka High Court
Mr. B. Nagaraju @ Hotel Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13367 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. B. NAGARAJU @ HOTEL NAGARAJU
S/O. BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RATHNA NILAYA,
BASAVESHWARA NAGARA,
B.W.S.S.B, KANAKAPURA
AMANAGARA-562 117
2. MR. K.V. NAGANANDA,
S/O T. VENKATARAMANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AVR ROAD,
J.C. EXTENSION, KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA-562 117
Digitally signed by 3. MR. KRISHNAPPA P @ VAJPEYEE,
NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH S/O LATE PAPANNA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
KRISHNA NILAYA,
THIMMAPPA REDDY GALLI,
HALASINAMARA DODDI,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA 562 117
4. MR. LAKSHMINARAYAN K.M @ ANNI
S/O LATE KMM. SHAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
NO.221, GARADI MANE BEEDI,
KOTE, KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA-562 117
5. MR. MAHESH B @ HOTEL MAHESH,
S/O LATE B.M. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.38, BOODIKERE ROAD,
NEAR BUS STOP, KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGAR-562 117
(NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN
AS ONLY HOTEL MAHESH IN CHARGE SHEET)
6. MR. ANANDA K.V.,
S/O VEERABHADRASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.175, MEGALABEEDI,
RAMANAGAR ROAD,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGAR-562 117.
(NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN
AS ONLY ANANDA IN CHARGE SHEET)
7. MR. KALAPPA. M.,
S/O MARIJOGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.472, KANCHI MUNI BEEDI KURUPETE,
A.K. COLONY, KURUPET,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
8. MR. SRINIVAS
@ GUDDADAHALLI SRINIVASA, ,
S/O GOVINDASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
POORN HOUSE, 2ND CROSS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS ONLY
GUDDADAHALLI SRINIVAS IN CHARGE SHEET)
9. MR.VENKATESHA
@ GUDDADAHALLI VENKATESHA,
S/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.136, MEGALA BEEDI,
BANANTHA MARAMMA LAYOUT,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR-562 117
( THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS ONLY
GUDDADUHALLI VENKATESH IN CHARGE SHEET)
10. MR. ADITYA MAHESH GOWDA.M
@ BAKERY MAHESHA,
S/O MAHADEVAIAH T.S.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
CHAMUNDESHWARI NILAYA,
SLN ROAD, JC EXTENSION,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR-562 117
(NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN
AS ONLY BAKERY MAHESHA IN CHARGE SHEET)
11. MR. SRIKANTH K.V
@ KANTHARAJU @ KANTHA,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
MEEGALA BEEDI, BM TEMPLE,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
(NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN
ASONLY KANTHARAJU KANTHA IN CHARGE SHEET)
12. MR. SHIVAKUMAR. K.V
@ SHIVA @ TIKLA,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
MEEGALA BEEDI, BM TEMPLE,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
(NAME OF THIS PETITIONER IS WRONGLY SHOWN
AS ONLY SHIVA TIKLA IN CHARGE SHEET)
13. MR. RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NEAR BANANTHAMMA TEMPLE,
MEGALA BEEDI, KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGAR-562 117
14. DHARSHAN M.B.,
S/O B.MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
NO.203, BMB COMPLEX, BUDIKERE,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
15. GURU @ N.GURUPRASAD,
S/O NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.36, M.G.ROAD, THAYAPPA BEEDI,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
16. VENKATEGOWDA H.G @ VENKATESH
SON OF GOVINDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.137,
SRINIVASA NILAYA, BWSSB ROAD,
BASAVESHWARA NAGARA,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-562 117
17. RAJENDRA C.R.,
S/O A. CHALUVARAJU URS,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
1ST CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
BEHIND GANGOTHRI SCHOOL,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR-562 117
18. MR. MAHALINGA K.M.,
S/O MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
BEHIND NEELAKANTESHWARA SCHOOL,
HANUMANTHANAGARA, KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA-562 117
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAPURA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. KAILASH
MAJOR IN AGE,
POLICE CONSTABLE, CPC.270,
KANAKAPURA POLICE STATION,
KANAKAPURA-562 117
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.509/2013 IN CR.NO.173/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C KANAKAPURA
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
RAMANAGARAM FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 141, 143, 144, 147,
341, 153(A) R/W 149 OF IPC
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.509/2013 pending on the file of III
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, Ramanagaram
for the offences punishable under Sections 141,
143, 144, 147, 341, 153(A) read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC‘ for short).
2. Heard Sri. Shankar H.S., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the issue in the lis is answered by the judgment of
the coordinate bench in Crl.P.No.2576/2023.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
would not dispute the position of law.
5. The relevant portion of judgment of the coordinate
Bench in Crl.P.No.2576/2023 reads as follows:
“8. On the afore-narrated date i.e., 12-12-2017 the
incident happens at about 6.00 p.m. where these
petitioners had organized Samavesh at Vanikere
Lay-out where accused No.2, National President of
Sree Ramasene along with others became a part of
the said conglomeration. It is the case of the
prosecution that directions were issued not to use
any arms or make any provocative speeches. The
allegation is that they have made provocative
speeches with regard to certain conversions of
members belonging to Hindu community and
shown the sword in public. This forms the content
of the report made before the jurisdictional Police
by the Police who were at the spot and it becomes
a crime in Crime No.250 of 2017 for several
offences including the one under Section 153A of
the IPC and under the Act quoted hereinabove.
9. The Police after investigation filed a
charge sheet before the concerned Court. Since
one of the accused was a member of the Legislative
Assembly, the matter was to be tried before the
Special Court for trying offences against elected
representatives. The Special Court then takes
cognizance of offence and the matter was set at the
stage of framing of charges. The issue now would
be whether trial should be permitted to be
continued for offences punishable under Section
153A of the IPC and other allied offences, in the
absence of sanction as required in law to try the
offence under Section 153A of the IPC.
10. Section 153A of the IPC reads as follows:
“153-A. Promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion,
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.–(1) Whoever–
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs or by visible representations or
otherwise, promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race,
place of birth, residence, language, caste
or community or any other ground
whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional
groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between
different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities,
and which disturbs or is likely to disturb
the public tranquillity, or
(c) organises any exercise, movement, drill or
other similar activity intending that the
participants in such activity shall use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or
knowing it to be likely that the participants
in such activity will use or be trained to
use criminal force or violence, or
participates in such activity intending to
use or be trained to use criminal force or
violence or knowing it to be likely that the
participants in such activity will use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence,
against any religious, racial, language or
regional group or caste or community and
such activity, for any reason whatsoever
causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm
or a feeling of insecurity amongst
members of such religious, racial,
language or regional group or caste or
community,shall be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Offence committed in place of
worship, etc.–(2) Whoever commits an offence
specified in sub-section (1) in any place of
worship or in any assembly engaged in the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to five years and shall also be
liable to fine.”
To allege offences under Section 153A and try
them, it is imperative that the State should accord
sanction for prosecution of offences under Section
153A. Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
“196. Prosecution for offences against
the State and for criminal conspiracy to
commit such offence.–(1) No Court shall take
cognizance of–
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter
VI or under Section 153-A, Section
295-A or sub-section (1) of Section
505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in
Section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860),except with the previous sanction of the Central
Government or of the State Government.
(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of–
(a) any offence punishable under Section 153-
B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of
Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such
offence,
except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government or of the State
Government or of the District Magistrate.
(2) No court shall take cognizance of the
offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable
under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
for a term of two years or upwards, unless the
State Government or the District Magistrate has
consented in writing to the initiation of the
proceedings:
Provided that where the criminal
conspiracy is one to which the provisions of
Section 195 apply, no such consent shall be
necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State
Government may, before according
sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-
A) and the District Magistrate may, before
according sanction under sub-section (1-A) and
the State Government or the District Magistrate
may, before giving consent under sub-section
(2), order a preliminary investigation by a police
officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in
which case such police officer shall have the
powers referred to in sub-section (3) of Section
155.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. deals with prosecution
for offences against the State and for criminal
conspiracy to commit such offence. Section 196 of
the Cr.P.C. begins with a non-obstante clause and
reads “No court shall take cognizance” for any
offence under Section 153A, 153B, 295A or Section
505 of the IPC or even abatement as obtaining
under Section 108A of the IPC. Sub-section (2) of
Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. further mandates that no
Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any
criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC
other than the criminal conspiracy to commit a
cognizable offence as described in the provision
supra provided where the criminal conspiracy is one
of which the provisions of Section 195 would apply.
The other offence alleged is under the Arms Act as
obtaining under Section 25(1AA). It reads as
follows:
“25. Punishment for certain
offences.–
... ... ...
...
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
(1-AA) Whoever manufactures, sells,
transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or
exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his
possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair,
test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than ten years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be
liable to fine.”
Whoever would manufacture, sell, transfer,
convert, repair, test or prove or expose or offer for
sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale or
transfer any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall
become punishable for a term of 7 years or more.
When these offences are alleged against the
petitioners, the admitted fact is that there is no
sanction accorded under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C.
as the offences alleged are against the State.
Therefore, without sanction being accorded for
prosecution, the Court could not have taken
cognizance as Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., which
mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of
the offence under Section 153A of the IPC. Section
153A of the IPC is what is alleged in the case at
hand apart from the offence under the Act.
Therefore, for want of sanction and the sanction
cutting at the root of taking of cognizance, the
aftermath of the order of taking of cognizance even
at the first instance would tumble down.
11. It is trite law that where an offence
alleged has to be tried, it has to be tried in the
manner that it is said to be tried, in the statute.
The setting of trial is the aftermath of taking of
cognizance. Taking of cognizance can be only in the
aftermath of according sanction under Section 196
of the Cr.P.C. In the light of no sanction, the
proceedings under Section 153A cannot be
permitted to be continued against the petitioners.
This would be with regard to the sanction.
12. In the event, sanction would not be
taken at the stage of cognizance, it is open for
remitting of the matter back to the competent
– 12 –
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
Court to continue the proceedings against the
petitioner after obtaining sanction. The issue then
would be whether any of the offences alleged or the
contents of the charge sheet so filed would in any
manner become the ingredients of Section 153A of
the IPC. Section 153A of the IPC is quoted supra.
Its essential ingredients are discussed by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in KOLLU ANKABABU v.
TIRUPATHI RAMESH1 wherein the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh after noticing Section 153A of the
IPC has held as follows:
“17. The ingredients necessary for making
out an offence under Section 153-A(a) is that the
accused person by words either spoken or written
etc., promotes or attempts to promote,
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or any
other ground whatsoever.
18. The ingredients necessary for making
out an offence under Section 153-A(b) is the
commission of any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between different
religious racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities, and which disturbs or is
likely to disturb the public tranquillity.
19. The ingredients necessary for an
offence under Section 153-A(c) is to
organise any exercise, movement, drill etc.,
so that participates in such activities can be
trained to use violence or criminal force
against any religious, racial, language or
regional group or caste or community and
such activity for any reason whatsoever
causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a
feeling of insecurity amongst members of
such religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or communities.
20. The language in all the three sub-
clauses of Section 153-A require the following
conditions to be met before any offence can be1
2022 SCC OnLine AP 2812
– 13 –
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024said to have been committed within this
provision:–
a) The actions should cause enmity
between groups; Ill will against one
group would not attract the above
provisions.
b) These actions should be committed
with the intention of causing such
enmity.
c) This provision would be applicable
only where enmity is caused on
grounds of religion, race, place of
birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground
whatsoever.
d) The term “or any other ground
whatsoever” would have to be read in
tandem with the preceding words and
as such the scope of this term would
be that the grounds would only have
to be grounds akin to the preceding
grounds set out in the provision.
e) The groups between whom such
enmity or disharmony or hatred or ill-
will is caused would be groups
defined on the basis of their religion,
race, language, place of birth, caste or
community.
f) Differences or ill-will caused between
two groups which are not defined on
the basis of the above requirements
would not attract the provisions of
Section 153-A IPC.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The High Court considering the fact that Section
153A of the IPC would require several conditions to
be met before trial on the said offence has stated
that the action should cause enmity between the
two groups. Ill-will against one particular group will
not attract Section 153A of the IPC. These actions
should be alleged to be committed with the
intention of causing the said enmity. The provision
– 14 –
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
would become applicable only where enmity is
caused on grounds of religion, race, place of birth
or any other grounds whatsoever. The terms ‘any
other grounds whatsoever’ cannot be read in
isolation; they will have to be read along with the
words that are in the other clauses of the provision.
Differences or ill-will caused between two groups
which are not defined on the basis of the
requirement under Section 153A of the IPC would
not attract the provision. If what is considered by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is paraphrased
into the facts obtaining in the case at hand, it
would become unmistakably clear that the offences
alleged would not touch upon the ingredients of
Section 153A of the IPC or in any way are not
enough to attract Section 153A of the IPC.
Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds permitting
further proceedings would become an abuse of the
process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the
following:
ORDER
I. Criminal petition is allowed.
II. Proceedings in Special C.C.No.2251 of
2022 pending before the LXXXI
Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-82), Bengaluru stand
quashed.
6. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the subject
proceedings also could be obliterated. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. Criminal petition is allowed.
– 15 –
NC: 2024:KHC:51920
CRL.P No. 13367 of 2024
2. Proceedings in C.C.No.509/2013 pending on
the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kanakapura, Ramanagaram stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 178
CT:SNN