- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9551 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRAKASH B.N S/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 2. SMT. SUPRIYA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 3. SMT. PARVATHI B.N W/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT 3-146, AGRAHARA CHANTHAR, BRAHMAVARA BRAHMMAVAR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR S, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTA POLICE STATION BRAHMMAVAR TALUK UDUPI DISRICT - 576 255 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 AT BENGALURU. 2. SRI H.M. JAGANNATHA POLICE INSPECTOR SHRANGERI POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED IN CR.NO.22/2019 DTD 14.02.2019 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT KOTA P.S, OFFENCES P/U/S 353, 309, 511 AND 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE CHARGE SHEET DTD 06.02.2020 IN C.C.NO.1118/2023 PENDING ON THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1118/2023, pending before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 309, 511 and 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Ravishankar S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.5222/2021, disposed on 07.04.2022, which reads as follows: "The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1115 of 2020, pending before the Additional Civil Jude and JMFC, Kundapura arising out of Crime No.22 of 2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 353, 309, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 3. Brief facts leading to the fling of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- A crime is registered in Crime No.58 of 2017 against one Sri B.N.Prakash by Smt. Marcy for offences punishable under Sections 376J and 498A of the IPC. The petitioner who is a practicing Advocate appears before the competent Court in favour of the accused - Sri B.N.Prakash. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet against Sri B.N.Prakash for offences punishable under Sections 493, 496, 498A, 376(2)(k) of the IPC, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 before the Sessions Judge and a non-bailable warrant was also issued against Sri B.N.Prakash as he was absconding. For executing non-bailable warrant, the 1st respondent/Police sought assistance of the petitioner who was his Advocate. At that point in time, some altercations took place between the petitioner, family members of Sri B.N.Prakash and the Police. Based upon this incident, a crime is registered against the petitioner in Crime No.22 of 2019 by the respondent/Police for offences punishable under Sections 353, 309, 511 and 34 of the IPC. It is at that point in time, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because the petitioner is the Advocate for the accused - Sri B.N.Prakiash and assistance was not rendered completely in executing non-bailable warrant, the Police have foisted a false case against the petitioner. The petitioner being a practicing Advocate is not ignorant of law to behave badly in the Police Station or with the Police and would submit that it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would defend the action of the Police in registering the crime against the petitioner and would submit that it is a matter of trial as the petitioner has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 indulged himself in a manner which would become offence punishable under Section 353 or 309 of the IPC, as he has stopped the public servants from performing their duty by using criminal force. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts with regard to the Police registering a crime against Sri B.N.Prakash and the petitioner, the Advocate representing Sri B.N.Prakash before the competent Court are not in dispute and are therefore, not reiterated. The petitioner was sought help by the respondents to execute non-bailable warrant as the petitioner was the Advocate for the accused - Sri B.N.Prakash. It is at that point in time, the respondents claimed that there were some altercations between the petitioner and the respondent/Police and accordingly, the provisions of Sections 353, 309 and 511 of the IPC are invoked against the petitioner. 8. Section 353 of the IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet does not indicate any use of criminal force or assault on a public servant by the petitioner, which stopped the Police from performing their duty. Therefore, the narration in the complaint does not make - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 out an offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. Section 309 of the IPC is the other provision invoked against the petitioner. Section 309 of the IPC deals with attempt to commit suicide. There cannot be any other absurdity than invoking this provision against the petitioner as it is nobody’s case that the petitioner wanted to commit suicide. Section 511 of the IPC mandates punishment for attempt to commit criminal offence/s, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. This provision appears to have been invoked as no other provision can be invoked against the petitioner. There is neither an allegation nor finding in the charge sheet that the petitioner has indulged himself in such offence, which could become punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment even. Therefore, even if the complaint is construed to be true, the offences made out against the petitioner on the very perusal of the FIR cannot be taken note of. The issue is completely covered by the very postulates of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it is held as follows: “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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 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 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) …….” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-extracted judgment and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, permitting any further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would become an abuse of process of law and results in miscarriage of justice. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30137 CRL.P No. 9551 of 2025 9. For aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1115 of 2020 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, stand quashed." 4. In the light of the afore-extracted judgment and in the facts obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioners. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1118 of 2023 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, qua the petitioners, stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE DN List No.: 5 Sl No.: 33