- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1819 CRL.P No. 201488 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201488 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. YASEEN S/O MOHAMMEDSAB MULLA AGED 44 YEARS, OCC: DENTIST R/O YASEEN MANZIL, NEAR WATER TANK, MARUTI NAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 2. ABDUL KHADEER S/O MOHAMMED KASIM BADAGAN, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O TALIKOTI, TQ: TALIKOTE, DIST; VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GOL GUMBAZ POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABENCH AT KALABURAGI-585 107. 2. MAHANTESH K. DAMANNAR P.S.I. (L AND O) GOL GUMBAZ PS VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/S. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1819 CRL.P No. 201488 of 2024 NO.560/2014 (ARISING GOL GUMBAZ POLICE STATION, BIJAPUR FIR (CRIME) NO.260/2008) FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S SECTION 153(A), 153(B), 120(B), 124(A) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 11, 13, 15 AND 18 OF PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 1967, AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2004, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, VIJAYAPURA AND ALSO PASS THE ORDERS OF QUASHING ANY OTHER PROCEEDING LIKE ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY ETC. ARISING FROM THE SAME AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.8 and 9 herein challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.560/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 153-B, 120-B and 124-A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 11, 13, 15 and 18 of Unlawful Activities and Prevention Act, 1967 and Amended Ordinance 2004, pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, at Vijayapura. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 was the active member of prohibited association namely ‘SIMI’, and he along with accused Nos.2 to 11 were convening the meetings in Masjid and other places and was receiving money from the public, for development of Islam organization, with an intention to take revenge against the Hindus and decided to celebrate 6th December 2008 as Babri Masjid Black Day, and also with an intention to create communal disharmony, he printed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1819 CRL.P No. 201488 of 2024 handbills with the assistance of accused Nos.12 to 15 in Image Printing Press, Belgavi, which are instigating the communal feelings, and created conspiracy, and also sent the handbills to accused No.8 to 11 and others for distribution, and to paste them in public places, and thereby instigating the public against Government of India by disturbing communal disharmony. On 04.12.2008 at about 06.00 a.m. accused pasted the stickers containing facts which raises communal disharmony, and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences. 3. The charge-sheet was split-up against accused No.1. The learned Sessions Judge, conducted the trial, and after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused No.1 of the offences alleged against him on the ground that the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate in the absence of sanction accorded by the competent authority under Section 196 of Cr.P.C, and also the name of accused No.1 was not found in the sanction order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners – accused herein and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners – accused herein submits that the sanction having not been accorded, to prosecute the petitioners as specified under Section 196 of Cr.P.C., the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate stands vitiated. The continuation of criminal proceedings as against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1819 CRL.P No. 201488 of 2024 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits that whether the sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioners - accused herein, or not is a matter which requires to be considered at the time of trial. At this stage, the same cannot be considered and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Perusal of the judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura in Sessions Case No.36/2010 discloses that the accused No.1 has been acquitted, by making following observations at page No.159, Para No.33. "33. This sanction was accorded on 12.05.2009. As discussed earlier, the Court shall not take cognizance of the above said offences without prior sanction from the concerned Government or District Magistrate as the case may be. In the instant case, the learned JMFC has taken cognizance of the offences based on the charge sheet on 18.03.2009. Thus, cognizance was taken prior to sanction accorded by the State Government. Hence, as it is, it is bad in law. Furthermore, name of the accused was not at all mentioned either in the sanction order or in the complaint. Thus, apparently there is no material to show that the Government had applied its mind before granting such sanction." 9. In this case, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offences in the absence of sanction - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1819 CRL.P No. 201488 of 2024 accorded by the State Government/Central Government as specified under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. and also under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities and Prevention Act, 1967. The sanction accorded after the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, does not contain the name of the accused herein. In the absence of sanction, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate stands vitiated for non-compliance of mandatory provision under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. and also under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities and Prevention Act, 1967. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding as against the petitioners – accused herein will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of conviction of the petitioners – accused herein, is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following; O R D E R i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.560/2014 (arising out of Golagumbaz PS FIR (Crime) No.260/2008) on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura, insofar as it relates to accused No.8 and 9, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR