- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10000 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MR. THULASI NAIK @ ESUDASH, S/O. HOSARAMA NAIK, AGE 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAMBANI TANDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. 2. MRS. DEVI @ MERI, AGE 41 YEARS, W/O. THULASI NAIK JOHN, RESIDING AT LAMBANI TANDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VICTOR MANOHARAN .S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL CIRCLE POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. MR. VENKATESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKAMARI, RESIDING AT LAMBANI TANDYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022 SMT. SATHYAVATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS A.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.241/2022 FILED BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 295A, 298, 504, 506, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.241 of 2022 of Channapatna Rural Police Station, Ramanagara District, pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jn.Dn) & JMFC, Channapatna, registered for the offence punishable under Section 295A, 298, 504, 506, 511, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information against accused Nos. 1 and 2 stating that, they being the followers of Christianity, set up a church in lambani thanda and trying to forcefully convert the innocent persons belonging to lambani sect, who are observing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022 Hindu culture. The accused were offering money and valuables to induce and to convert the persons. The accused have also criminally intimidated the informant and other members of the community, deliberately insulted their religious feeling, etc,. and therefore, requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police have registered the case and took up the investigation. In the meantime, petitioners approached this Court and got the interim order of stay and therefore, no investigation was undertaken. 3. Heard Sri. Victor Manoharan S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Sathyavathi, learned counsel for Sri. Srinivas A R, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022 My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners belongs to Christian community and they have set up a church and propagating their religion. However, false allegations are made against them. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, there is a bar for proceeding with the registration of criminal case in view of Section 196 of Cr.PC, since it is a complaint under Section 295A of IPC. In that regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Another v/s Pastor P Raju1. The proposition of law highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that, the previous sanction is necessary only for taking cognizance by the Court and made it clear that the bar of sanction will not apply against registration of the criminal case or investigation by the police. It is also made clear that apprehending the accused by the Investigating Officer and the 1 AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2825 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2413 CRL.P No. 10000 of 2022 learned magistrate remanding the accused to custody would not amount to taking cognizance. Even though this decision is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is not helpful to him in any manner. Admittedly, no investigation was undertaken except registration of FIR. Taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate will be only after filing the final report by the Investigating Officer. That stage has not yet reached. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioners. They are not entitle for any relief. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17