Karnataka High Court
Wazeer Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2399 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. WAZEER KHAN
S/O KALANDAR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
# 104, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
ARFATHH NAGAR,
PADARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 026.
2. IRSHAD AHAMED,
S/O S/O ZIKRIA AHMED
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
# 88/2, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
PADARAYANAPURA WEST
BANGALORE - 560 026.
3. ARSHAD PASHA,
S/O ALTAF PASHA
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
CHANDANA R/AT 1162, 11TH CROSS, ARAFTH NAGAR,
BM HOSAHALLI, OLD GUDDADAHALLI,
Location: BANGALORE - 560 026.
High Court
of Karnataka ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY J.J. NAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. DADAPEER H.C. 9700,
J.J. NAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 028
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.12397/2020 OF JAGAJEEVANRAM NAGAR P.S., FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 506, 353,
332, 269, 271 R/W 149 OF IPC, 3, 4 OF PREVENTION OF
DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT AND SEC. 51(B) OF
23 NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, PENDING ON THE
FILE HONBLE COURT OF XLVI ACJM AT BANGALORE AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS.
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
In this petition, petitioners seek quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No12397/2020 arising out of FIR in Crime No.73/2020
registered by the Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru,
pending on the file of XLVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 506, 353, 332, 269, 271 read with Section 149 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of property
act and Section 51(B) of National Disaster Management Act.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioners – Wazeer Khan, Irshad Ahamed and Arshad Pasha wer
arraigned as accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 along with 70 others, who
were arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3, 6 to 73 in the charge sheet in
C.C.No.12397/2020 pursuant to FIR in Crime No.73/2020. The
offences alleged against the petitioners and other accused are
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 353, 332, 269, 271 read with
Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of
Destruction and Loss of property act and Section 51(B) of National
Disaster Management Act.
4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners
invited my attention to the order of this Court in order to point out
that the proceedings as against accused Nos.7 to 73 have been
quashed in Nawaz Pasha and Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka
and Anr – Crl.P.No.5913/2020 and connected matters dated
13.03.2024. In view of quashment of criminal proceedings qua
accused Nos.7 to 73, the present petitioners, who are accused
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
Nos.1, 4 and 5 in C.C.No.12397/2020 would be entitled to seek
parity.
5. This Court in the case of Nawaz Pasha, supra held as
under:
These petitions are filed by the petitioners/accused
persons under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the
Criminal proceedings registered by the Jagajeevanram
Nagar police station in Crime No.70/2020, 71/2020,
72/2020, 73/2020, 74/2020 for the various offences
punishable under the IPC sections as well as the
Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘PDLP Act’) and National
Disaster Management Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as
‘NDM Act’). After investigating the matter, the police have
filed different charge sheets against the petitioners in
C.C.Nos.12477/2020, 13583/2020, 12821/2020,
12397/2020 and 12506/2020.
2. In Crime No.70/2020, there were 55 accused
persons, in Crime No.71/2020, there were 120 accused
persons, in Crime No.72/2020, there were 76 accused
persons, Crime No.73/2020, there were 68 accused
persons and in Crime No.74/2020, there were 55 accused
persons. Most of the accused persons are common
accused in all the cases.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. The case of the prosecution in all these cases is
that on 19.4.2020 between 6.30 p.m. to 6.50 p.m., when
the BBMP officials went to secure 58 corona infected
persons, at that time the accused persons formed unlawful
assembly, armed with knife, club and rods with an intention
to spread corona infection in Padarayanpura and had
obstructed the area, where the Asha workers, Medical
Officers belonging to BBMP, were lawfully discharging their
official duty. The accused persons caused damage to the
public property by breaking chairs, tables, tents at 10th
cross, Arfathnagar. Thereafter, they went to other adjacent
roads, in total 5 different roads and they caused damages.
Therefore, the police officials have filed the suo-motu
complaint against the accused/petitioners in 5 different
complaints against the accused persons.
4. In Crl.P.No.5832/2022, the police lodged
complaint in Crime No.70/2020 pending in
C.C.NO.12477/2020, on the file of 37th ACMM, Bengaluru,
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
353, 332, 269, 271 read with 149 of IPC, sections 3 and 4
of PDLP Act and Section 51(B) of NDM Act, against 61
accused persons, out of which the petitioners in this
petition are accused Nos.7 to 61 (total 55 accused
persons).
5. The Crl.P.No.1008/2021 (accused No.2) and
Crl.P.No.5893/2022 (accused Nos.7 to 126) filed arising
out of Crime No.71/2020, in C.C.No.13583/2020 pending
on the file of 37th ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 201, 353,
333, 323, 324, 506, 269, 271, 188 read with 149 of IPC and
sections 3 and 4 of PDLP Act and section 51(B) of NDM
Act, totally 126 accused persons mentioned in the FIR, out
of which accused No.2 and accused Nos.7 to 126 have
filed this petition (total 121 accused persons).
6. In Crl.P.No.5799/2022, the complaint was filed in
Crime No.72/2020 in C.C.No.12821/2020, on the file of 37th
ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 506, 269, 271, 188 read
with 149 of IPC, sections 3 and 4 of PDLP Act and section
51(B) of NDM Act, totally 82 accused, out of them accused
Nos.7 to 82 have filed this petition. In total, 76 persons
have filed this petition.
7. In Crl.P.No.5913/2022 (accused Nos.7 to 73) and
Crl.P.No.552/2021 (accused No.2) the complaint filed in
Crime No.73/2020 in C.C.No.12397/2022, on the file of 37th
ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 506, 269, 271, 188 read
with 149 of IPC, sections 3 and 4 of PDLP Act and section
51(B) of NDM Act, totally 73 accused persons registered as
per FIR, out of them accused No.2 and accused Nos.7 to
73, totally 68 persons have filed this petition.
8. In Crl.P.No.5821/2022 (accused Nos.7 to 61), the
complaint filed in Crime No.74/2020, pending in
C.C.No.12506/2020 on the file of 37th ACMM, Bengaluru,
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
353, 332, 269, 271 read with 149 of IPC, sections 3 and 4
of PDLP Act and section 51(B) of NDM Act, totally 61
accused out of them, accused Nos.7 to 61 filed this petition
totally, 55 persons have filed this petition.
9. The petitioners being aggrieved with filing of the
charge sheet, filed these petitions challenging the charge
sheet contending that after registering the FIR, the police
arrested the petitioners, and that they are innocent public
who do not have any connection with the case. Also, their
houses are different places, therefore, without identifying
the real culprits, the police have blindly registered the case
against these petitioners. He further contended that the
BBMP officials did not come with clean hands to secure
corona infected persons. There is no list of infected
persons in order to quarantine them, they have not
narrated the names of the officials or patients or receipt of
any information regarding corona patients. There was no
wound or injury sustained by any of the persons in order to
attract Section 307 of the IPC. There was delay in getting
MLC. They have taken treatment in private clinic, though
Government Hospital is situated in front of the police
station. The CCTV footage does not reveal any
incriminating materials found against the petitioners and
nothing were seized. There is no Test Identification Parade
conducted by the police. None of the offences alleged
would attract the provisions. Further it is contended, the
statement of witnesses are stereotype statements. Though
the police have filed that more than 120 accused persons
were involved, but no property has been damaged, which
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
was seized by the police. Hence, prayed for quashing the
Criminal proceedings.
10. Learned counsel also contended as per the
allegations, it appears there is only one offence which has
been committed, but the police have registered 5 different
FIRs in the same police station against the same accused
persons for the same cause of action. Therefore, the
criminal prosecutions against the petitioners are liable to be
quashed.
11. Learned counsel further contended, the very
prosecution is liable to be quashed, there is a bar under
Section 195 (1) a) of Cr.P.C., where the Government
officials are required to file private complaint, in respect of
violation of the provisions of Sections 172 to 188 of IPC
and Disaster Management Act. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court reported in (1981) 2
SCC 185 in case of State of Karnataka Vs Hemareddy @
Vemareddy and Anr. Also relied on another case in
W.P.No.13328/2018 (GM-RES) in case of
Rajashekharananada Swamiji and Anr Vs State of
Karnataka) and in case of Mahesh@Mahesha M., and
Ors Vs State in Crl.P.No.9153/2022 and other cases.
12. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP has seriously
objected the petition contending that the police have
registered 5 different FIRs against various accused
persons and most of the accused persons are common in
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
all the FIRs The time of offence as well as place of offence
are altogether different where the first offence was
committed at 10th cross, wherein the complainant was one
Venkatesh police constable, in Crime No.0070/2020 the
offence was committed at 7.10 p.m. In second case, Crime
No.71/2020, the FIR was lodged by one PSI Raman
Gowda the alleged offence was committed at 7.20 p.m., at
11th Cross, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru. In Crime
No.72/2020 the complainant was one Gajendra, Head
Constable and the alleged offence was committed at 12th
cross Padrayanapura, Bengaluru and the offence was
committed at 7.30 p.m.. In Crime No.73/2020 the
complainant was one Dadapeer, Head constable and the
alleged offence was committed at 11th cross,
Padarayanapura and the time of offence was at 7.40 p.m.
In Crime No.74/2020 complainant was Dr.Yogesh and
place of incident was 10th cross, West of Padarayanapura,
the time of incident was at 6.30 p.m. Learned counsel
contended that the different offences committed by the
accused persons, in different places at different times and
complaint was lodged by different persons. Therefore, it
cannot be considered as one FIR or one incident in order to
quash the Criminal proceedings.
13. Learned Addl.SPP has contended that though
the offences under Section 188 of IPC, where the private
complaint is required to be filed and quashed on the
ground, the FIR has been lodged, but the remaining
offences for damaging the public properties and causing
injury, obstructing the public servants were remaining for
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
prosecution. Therefore, case is required for trial and for
framing of charges. Hence, prayed for dismissing the
petition.
14. Having heard the arguments, perused the
records. The sum and substance of the prosecution case
is that, there was Covid-19 lockdown during April-2021 and
there were 51 persons who were affected with corona
infection and the said houses of the persons were required
to be sealed down. Therefore, the BBMP officials, visited
the padarayanapura area for sealing down. At that time,
these accused persons said to be obstructed them from
discharging official duty and they said to be shown criminal
force on them. They said to be damaged the chairs and
table kept near the tents erected by the BBMP and they
also said to be caused injury to one of the police and the
offence is punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
Admittedly, all the cases were arising out of series of
incidents, at a time, one after the another. However, at
different places, the accused persons had committed the
offence, at different times and different persons have
lodged complaint. There are different FIRs which have
been registered in the same police station one after the
another. It is also found that some of the accused persons
are common, in all the 5 cases and some of them are
different accused person in some cases. Accused Nos.1 to
6 were named in the FIR in 4 cases and 5 accused persons
were named in one FIR. These petitioners were not named
in the FIR, but the names are shown in the charge sheet .
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. The alleged offences mainly attract section 188
of IPC where there was promulgation of the state for Covid-
19 lockdown and sealing down the infected area of Corona
Virus. Though, the BBMP officials went to the
padarayanapura area for sealing down on the ground, that
there were 51 persons infected with the corona virus, but in
the charge sheet there are no details or names of the
corona virus affected persons in order to seal down the
area. When the BBMP officials were obstructing the road
for sealing down, these petitioners might have agitated
against them for sealing down the area, as they were
required to come out for purchasing the milk or vegetables
or food products for day to day usages, at that time there
may be scuffle between them and the alleged incident must
have taken place. Therefore, the main offence alleged
against accused persons is under Section 188 of IPC and
thereafter the remaining offences attracted under the IPC
and for violating the order of the Government during the
emergency situation or lockdown, in view of the Covi-19
virus. The government passed the order under the
Disaster Management Act for lockdown or sealing down the
area, therefore, it attracts section 51 of the Disaster
Management Act. As per section 195 of Cr.P.C., there is a
bar for taking cognizance by the Magistrate, for the offence
punishable under Section 188 of IPC, the relevant section
195 (1)(a)(i) read as under :–
“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) xxxxxxxxxxxx
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
(iii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
except on the xxxxxxxxxxxx;
b)(i) xxxxxxxxxxxx court; ог
(ii) of any offence described in section
463, or punishable under section 471, section
475 or section 476 of the said Code, when
such offence is alleged to have been
committed in respect of a document produced
or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
court; or
16. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 195
(1)(a) (i) of Cr.P.C., for filing the complaint under Section
154 of Cr.P.C for filing the charge sheet and taking
cognizance from the Magistrate, apart from that, for the
purpose of taking cognizance, offence punishable under
Section 51 (B) of the Disaster Management Act, again
there is a bar for taking cognizance on the police report,
except on the complaint by the National Authority or State
Authority or District Authority, or any other authority shall
be authority in this behalf, by that authority or the
Government as the case may be, as per section 60 of the
Disaster Manager Act, which is as under:-
“Section 60: Cognizance of offences. No
court shall take cognizance of an offence under
this Act except on a complaint made by-
(a) the National Authority, the State
Authority, the Central Government, the State
Government, the District Authority or any other
authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that
Authority or Government, as the case may be; or
(b) any person who has given notice of not
less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of
the alleged offence and his intention to make a
complaint to the National Authority, the State
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
Authority, the Central Government, the State
Government, the District Authority or any other
authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.”
17. Therefore, the registered FIR and filing the
charge sheet is barred for taking cognizance under Section
195 of Cr.P.C., and section 60 of Disaster Management Act
offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and section
51 (B) of Disaster Management Act.
18. This court also held in a similar case in WP
NO.10241/2021 dated 4.8.2021 in the case of Dr.M.K.
Pushpitha Vs State of Karnataka and another. The
coordinate benches also taken the similar view in various
cases. Now the question that arises to this court, other
than the section 188 of IPC and section 51 of Disaster
Management Act, is whether prosecution can be continued
for the offences punishable under the IPC sections such as
353, 332, 143, 149, 307, 323 of IPC and also damaging the
Public Properties Act.
19. The Addl. SPP contended that other than the
non cognizable offence, the remaining IPC sections shall
be proceeded against the accused persons. In this regard,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Bandekar Brothers
Pvt., Ltd., Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni and Ors reported in
(2020) 20 SCC 1 at paragraph 48 has held as under:
“Equally important to remember that if in
the course of the same transaction two separate
offences are made out, for one of which section
195 of Cr.P.C is not attracted and it is not
possible to split them up, the drill of section 195
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025HC-KAR
(1)(b) Cr.P.C must be followed. Thus in State of
Karnataka Vs Hemareddy, this court referred to
the judgment of Madras High Court (V.V.L.
Narasimhamurthy, In re)”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the coordinate bench
of this Court, also taken the similar view in the case of
“Rajashekharananada Swamiji” stated supra that without
filing the complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., question
of filing FIR and charge sheet and taking cognizance
cannot be sustained. Therefore, the contention of the
learned Addl.SPP to split up IPC cases cannot be
acceptable. In order to split up the cognizable IPC cases
and quashing the non-cognizable cases and proceed with
the trial, is not correct and cannot be acceptable.
Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and bar under the Cr.P.C., as well as
Disaster Management Act, the Criminal proceedings
against these petitioners in the above 5 cases are liable to
be quashed without going to the veracity of the offence
committed by the accused, whether one offence or different
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
offences, in different place of occurrence. Hence, petition
deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed.
Consequently, the petition filed
against the petitioners/accused persons in (i)
Crl.P.NO.5832/2022 filed by the accused
Nos.7 to 61, in C.C.NO.12477/2020, in Crime
No.70/2020;
(ii) In Crl.P.No.1008/2021 filed by
accused No.2 and CRL.P.No.5893/2022 filed
by the accused Nos.7 to 126 in Crime
No.71/2020, in C.C.NO.13583/2020;
(iii) In Crl.P.No.5799/2022, filed by
accused Nos.7 to 82, in Crime No.72/2020, in
C.C.NO.12821/2020;
(iv) Crl.P.No.552/2021 filed by
accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.5913/2022, filed
by accused Nos.7 to 73, in Crime
No.73/2020, in C.C.NO.12397/2020 and
(v) In Crl.P.No.5821/2022, filed by
accused Nos.7 to 61, in Crime No.74/2020 in
C.C.NO.12506/2020, all these crimes filed by
Jagajeevanram Nagar police station, which
are pending on the file of 37th ACMM,
Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25123
CRL.P No. 2399 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that
proceedings as against accused Nos.7 to 73 have been quashed
by this Court in Crl.P.No.5913/2022 and connected matters, and
consequently, by applying the doctrine of parity, proceedings
against the petitioners – accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 in this petition also
deserves to be quashed.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.12397/2020
arising out of Crime No.73/2020 pending on the file of XLVI
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 353, 332, 269, 271
read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of
Destruction and Loss of property act and Section 51(B) of National
Disaster Management Act insofar as petitioners are concerned, are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 28
[ad_1]
Source link