- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 11802 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VINAY SRINIVAS @ VINAY K. SREENIVASA S/O LATE SHRINIVAS GUPTA, AGED 44 YEARS, NO.18, BHARATH BHAVAN, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BABU PRAKASH A.S. @ DR. BHANU PRAKASH, S/O SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.160, 10TH MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 011. 3. IMRAN @ AYAZ PASHA S/O BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, NO.135/1, H K P ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051. 4. LEO JOHN S/O V P JOHN, AGED 28 YEARS, NO.7, VADAKKAN HOUSE, 2ND CROSS, R M G ELECTROMECH, GANGAIAH LAYOUT, KEREGUDDADAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 015. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 5. MAHAMMAD ISMAIL @ MOHAMMED ISMAIL BAIG, S/O SALEEM PASHA, AGED 23 YEARS, NO.57/1, KHAZEE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004. 6. SHOHEB @ SHOAIB PASHA S/O CHAND PASHA, AGED 22 YEARS, NO.234, 4TH CROSS, GANDHIPURA, BANGALORE-560 066. &PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHRUTI CHAGANTI, COUNSEL FOR SRI. BASAWA PRASAD KUNALE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.206/2023 DATED 16.10.2023 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 188, 283, 290, 291, 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings against them in Crime No.206/2023 registered at Cubbon Park Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 188, 283, 290, 291 r/w 149 IPC. 2. FIR is registered on a suo moto complaint lodged by the Station House Officer/Police sub-inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. It is averred in the complaint that on 16.10.2023 at about 5.00 p.m., about 100 3 150 people had assembled in front of Metro Station, M.G.Road, Bengaluru holding different Placards reading <To stand with Palestine is to stand with Humanity; we know to well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of Palestine; you don9t need to be Muslim to stand up for GAZA and Palestine, you just need to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 human=. It is alleged that they were staging a protest and shouting slogans without obtaining prior permission from the competent Authority. 3. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that as per Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the concerned public servant is required to file a written private complaint, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and therefore registration of an FIR is impermissible, which vitiates the proceedings. It is further contended that the order allegedly disobeyed was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and hence, the Police sub-inspector, on whose complaint the case is registered, is not the competent Authority. Section 195 Cr.P.C., reads as under: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); >7 (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;" 4. The reading of the above provision makes it clear that for a Court to take cognizance, there must be a written complaint filed by the public servant concerned or by a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, there is no written complaint and secondly, the prohibitory order was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant. 5. Insofar as the other offences mentioned in the FIR are concerned, it is useful to refer to para Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 Court in WP No.13328/2018 disposed on 18.06.2021, which are extracted here under: <10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy (1981) 2 SCC 185, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: <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." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed.= 6. A similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.41465/2017 disposed on 12.07.2022 and similar other decisions. 7. It is also relevant to mention that, as per complaint averments, there were about 100 3 150 people assembled at the spot. It is alleged that without taking any permission from the competent Authority, they had assembled holding candles and protesting, shouting slogans etc. However, only seven accused, have been named in the FIR, against others no case is registered. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48484 WP No. 11802 of 2025 ORDER Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.206/2023 pending on the file of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78