- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200552 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN 1 . SYED GOUDA MOINUDDIN @ SYED GOUSE MOINUDDIN S/O SYED AZAMODDIN KHADRI AGE 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O GANWAR VILLAGE TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI – 585 328 2 . MOHAMMED GOUSE S/O SALEEM SAB APAKARI AGE 33 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O KHAJA COLONY, JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 328 3 . DAWOOD @ MOHAMMED DAWOOD S/O ABDUL RAZAK MAKANDAR AGE 25 YEARS, OCC CENTRING WORK R/O JOPADPATTI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST. KALABURAGI-585 328 4 . ABDUL SATTAR S/O GUDUSAB INAMADAR Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 AGE 33 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS R/O TIPPU SULTAN CHOWK JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 5 . NISAR S/O AHMED HUSSAIN SAB INAMADAR, AGE 32 YEARS OCC COOLIE, R/O TIPPU SULTAN CHOWK JEWARAGI, TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 6 . BABA @ BABA FAKRODDIN S/O KONAMIRSAB INAMADAR AGE 37 YEARS, OCC PHOTOGRAPHER R/O KHAJA COLONY, JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 7 . MOHEBOOB PATEL S/O NABI PATEIL KOBAL AGE 55 YEARS, OCC COOLIE R/O KOBAL VILLAGE TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 8 . RUKUM TOLA S/O IMAMSAB MIRCHI AGE 31 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O KHAJA COLONY JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 9 . MOHAMMED TAYYAB @ TAYYAB LOHAR S/O AHMED SAB LOHAR, AGE 32 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 OCC BUSINESS, R/O LAXMI CHOWK JEWARAGI, TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 10 . MOHAMMED AFROOZ S/O MOHAMMED ISMAILSAB PATEL (WELCOME HOTEL) AGE 26 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS KHAJA COLONY, JEWARAGI R/O TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 11 . MOHAMMED ASLAM S/O MOHAMMED JILANI @ JILANISAB BHAGAWAN, AGE 30 YEARS OCC MOBILE SHOP, R/O KHAJA COLONY JEWARAGI, TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 12 . KHUDUS UL RAHIMAN @ ABDUL KHUDUS S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN INAMADAR AGE 21 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O JOPADPATTI, JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 328 13 . MOHAMMED JAFFAR ALI @ JAFFAR TARAKARI S/O CHANDPASHA JILANI AGE 31 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 OCC BUSINESS R/O ONTI MOHALLA, JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 14 . AMEER JAMADAR @ SYED AMEER S/O SYED MASHAK SAB, AGE 63 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI, DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 15 . IMRAN@ IBRAHIM S/O ABDUL KHADAR KUKUNOOR, AGE 25 YEARS OCC MILK BUSINESS R/O KASARBOSAGA NOW R/AT SHASTRI CHOWK JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI, DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 16 . ABDUL KHAYUM @ AMLA S/O MASOOD SAB AGE 30 YEARS, OCC ELECTRICAL WORK R/O NEAR URDU SCHOOL JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI, DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 17 . HABIB SAB @ ABIB SAB S/O AHAMED SAB JAMADAR, AGE 53 YEARS, OCC TAILOR R/O JAINAPUR VILLAGE, TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 18 . MAKBUL PATEL S/O MOHAMMED ALI GUTTEDAR @ MALLABAD AGE 52 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR R/O VIDYA NAGAR JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 19 . FAROOQ PATEL @ MOHAMMED RIYAZ S/O KHASIM PATEL POLICEPATEL AGE 24 YEARS, OCC STUDENT R/O MUDABAL VILLAGE TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 20 . SHAHRUKH @ MOHAMMED SHAHRUKH S/O SALEEM GIRANI, AGE 24 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O SHASTRI CHOWK JEWARAGI, TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 21 . SHAHRUKH @ SHAHRUKH KHAN S/O ABDUL KAREEM SHAIKH AGE 21 YEARS, OCC MECHANIC R/O ONTI MOHALLA JEWARAGI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (REP. BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585106) THROUGH JEWARAGI POLICE STATION DIST KALABURAGI-585 328 2 . SRI. KALLAYYA AGE 45 YEARS, OCC ASI AT JEWARGI POLICE STATION R/O JEWARGI TALUK JEWARAGI DIST. KALABURAGI – 585 328 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED ) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 9/2021 (CRIME NO. 289/2017) FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 353 R/W 149 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY JEWARAGI P.S. TALUK JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JEWARAGI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of charge sheet in C.C.No.9/2021 arising out of Cr.No.289/2017 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewaragi for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 353 read with Section 149 of IPC. Factual matrix of the case are as under: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.10.2017 at about 6.00 p.m., the respondent police lodged a complaint before the SHO stating that there was a quarrel between one Siddalingayya K Swamy and Shivappa Lakkani in respect of vacating illegal hotels, pan shops and other shops situated within the jurisdiction of Grama Panchayath. The reasons for vacating the said shops is that one Siddalingayya K Swamy, resident of Andola Village had instigated when the procession of immersion of Ganesha Idol had taken place on behalf of association of Sriram Sangha. As against the said instigation, the Muslim Community people without taking permission from - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 the Government took procession on 23.10.2017 and started agitating against the said Siddalingayya K Swamy. 3. It is further stated that the police officials had instructed the agitators that they should not conduct any instigation or procession without taking permission from the competent Authority. Such being the fact, the persons mentioned in the charge sheet have started assaulting the police officials and obstructed them from discharging their duty. Hence, on the basis of the complaint, FIR in Cr.No.289/2017 came to be registered against the petitioners. After conducting investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard Sri. Mahentesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, even though, the FIR is registered against the petitioners making allegations that they had committed offences as stated supra, the fact remains that, as per the complaint, there were number of protestors protesting against - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 Siddalingayya K Swamy, such being the fact, it would be difficult to identify the each protestors and also difficult to assess the overt-act of each individuals. Therefore, even these petitioners are subjected for trial, the possibility of conviction is very bleak. Thus, the charge sheet against the petitioners may be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified in filing the charge sheet and submitted that the names of the petitioners finds place in the FIR and the complaint. It is not the case that the protestors were not known to the police officials. The petitioners who are before this Court are the persons named in, not only in the FIR, but also, in the charge sheet. Therefore, the overt-act against these petitioners has been shown in the charge sheet. Hence, it is not the case to quash the proceedings. Having said thus, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State prays to reject the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, before adverting to the merit of the case, it is relevant to refer - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (this extract is taken from B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 475) and the relevant paragraphs as under: 14. The position of law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court that in order to entertain a challenge to the FIR, charge-sheet or an order taking cognizance, all that has to be seen is, whether from a bare reading of the charge-sheet, the ingredients of the sections charged therein are being prima facie made out or not. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, wherein it was held that : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 275 at page 481 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, it is trite that the constitutional courts are wholly competent to exercise their extraordinary power to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of the justice if the allegations in the FIR or complaint neither disclose the commission of any offence nor make out a prima facie case against the accused. 8. 8. Having considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, now, it is relevant to advert to the facts of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 petitioners had not obtained the permission for conducting protest against the hatred speech of Siddalingayya K Swamy. When the police instructed the protestors not to proceed further as the protestors did not get any permission from the competent Authority, the protestors did not pay attention to their words and proceeded further to demonstrate processions. As there was scuffle between the protestors and the police officials, force might have been used, that may be sufficient to hold that the protestors had intentionally assaulted the police officials. Though it is stated that these petitioners were present in the processions, the facts remains that, the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC against these petitioners cannot be attracted for the reasons that, it would be difficult to assess the overt- act, of individual. Moreover, it is a case of Section 143 of IPC. Such being the fact, recognizing the each and individual’s overt-act is very difficult. The witnesses are the officials and they are interested witnesses. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings against these petitioners. 9. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5138 CRL.P No. 200552 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.9/2021 (Cr.No.289/2017) pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewaragi is quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, interim application, if any, stands disposed off. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2