The Aryavarth Express
Agency(karnataka): The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the accused in five cases related to violence that erupted during the COVID-19 lockdown in the Padarayanapura area of Bengaluru in April 2020. The court held that there was a bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act for taking cognizance of offenses under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 51(B) of the Act, respectively.
The cases arose from incidents that occurred on April 19, 2020, between 6:30 PM and 7:40 PM, when BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) officials went to the Padarayanapura area to seal down houses of 58 persons infected with COVID-19. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons, and obstructed the officials from discharging their duties. They were also accused of damaging public property and causing injuries to police personnel.
Five separate FIRs were registered by the Jagajeevanram Nagar police station, naming a total of 374 accused persons, with many of them being common across the cases. The accused were charged with various offenses under the IPC, including Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 271 (disobedience to quarantine rule), and 307 (attempt to murder), among others. They were also charged under the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, and the National Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The accused persons filed petitions before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. They contended that they were innocent and had no connection with the case, and that the police had blindly registered cases against them without identifying the real culprits. They also argued that the BBMP officials did not have a list of infected persons to be quarantined and that there was no evidence of injuries sustained by anyone to attract Section 307 of the IPC.
The petitioners further submitted that the very prosecution was liable to be quashed as there was a bar under Section 195(1)(a) of the CrPC, which requires a complaint to be filed by the concerned government official for offenses under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC and the Disaster Management Act.
The Additional SPP, representing the state, opposed the petitions, arguing that the police had registered five different FIRs for offenses committed by the accused at different places, times, and against different complainants. He contended that though offenses under Section 188 of the IPC required a private complaint, the remaining offenses for damaging public property, obstructing public servants, and causing injury were triable and required framing of charges.
After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the High Court observed that the main offense alleged against the accused was under Section 188 of the IPC, which attracts the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC for taking cognizance by the magistrate. The court also noted that for taking cognizance of the offense under Section 51(B) of the Disaster Management Act, there was a bar under Section 60 of the Act, requiring a complaint by the designated authorities.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bandekar Brothers Pvt., Ltd., Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni and Ors, which held that if two separate offenses are made out in the course of the same transaction, one of which does not attract Section 195 of the CrPC, and it is not possible to split them up, the procedure under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC must be followed.
Relying on this judgment and similar rulings by coordinate benches of the High Court, the court held that the contention of the Additional SPP to split up the cognizable IPC offenses and proceed with the trial while quashing the non-cognizable offenses was not correct and could not be accepted. The court observed that in view of the bar under the CrPC and the Disaster Management Act, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in all five cases were liable to be quashed, without going into the veracity of the offenses committed by the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused in all five cases pending before the 37th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
