- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47408 CRL.P No. 1151 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1151 OF 2024 (482 (Cr.PC)/528 (BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NAWAZ S/O. MOHAMMED RAFIULLA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT #436, RAZAQ SAB PALYA, BAGALUR, BANGALORE-562 149. 2. DADAPEER S/O. LATE MAHMAD HANEEF ADED:MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.28, BUDEN SAB PALYA, BAGALUR, BANGALORE-562 149. 3. BABAJAN S/O. LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT #22, BUDEN SAB PALYA, BAGALUR, BANGALORE-562 149. 4. KADHAR S/O. NAZEER AHMED AGED:MAJOR Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47408 CRL.P No. 1151 of 2024 R/AT #436, RAZAQ SAB PALYA, BAGALUR, BANGALORE-562 149. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NOOR UL HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING-560 001 (BIDADI POLICE). 2. MAHANTESH MULAGE S/O. VEERASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP., FOR R.1; R.2: SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.47/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND CJM., AT RAMANAGARA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 188, 278 AND 328 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47408 CRL.P No. 1151 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the State Government has promulgated an order, wherein rearing of catfish has been banned. Inspite of it, the petitioners herein (accused nos.1 to 4) in C.C.No.47/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Ramanagara have been accused of rearing catfish in a farm. On the said allegations, C.C.No.47/2022 has been filed and petitioners are charged with offences punishable under Sections 188, 278 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The cognizance of the same has been taken by the trial Court by its order dated 16.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were not aware of the prohibitory order and hence, they were rearing the catfish. The petitioners denied the offences alleged against them. However, the materials placed by the prosecution, prima facie show that catfish was indeed being reared in a farm located in Kanchugaranahalli Village, Ramanagara Taluk, inspite of the prohibitory orders from the State. Action has been initiated by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47408 CRL.P No. 1151 of 2024 the State by demolishing the ponds in which the catfish were being reared. Whether the same was being reared by the petitioners or not and whether the petitioners are guilty of doing the same, are questions of fact to be established during the trial. 3. Section 188 of the IPC reads as under:- "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47408 CRL.P No. 1151 of 2024 4. Section 278 of the IPC reads as under:- "278. Making atmosphere noxious to health.— Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.” 5. Section 328 of the IPC reads as under:- "328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.—Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 6. The allegation made against the petitioners herein is that, in spite of a prohibitory order, catfish was being reared, in violation of the same. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, cognizance can be taken against the petitioners only for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 278 of the IPC. Section 328 of the IPC pertains to causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to commit an offence in respect of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47408 CRL.P No. 1151 of 2024 human being. By no stretch of imagination, rearing of a catfish can attract the said provision. Hence the following:- ORDER i. The impugned order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagara, insofar as it relates to taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners herein regarding commission of an offence under Section 328 of the IPC is quashed. ii. Insofar as it relates to taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 188 and 278 of the IPC is upheld. iii. The criminal petition is partly allowed. iv. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36