[Padarayanapura Riots] Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 375 People Alleged To Have Obstructed Civic Officials During COVID-19 Lockdown

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against 375 people alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons in the Padarayanapura area on 19.4.2020 when there was a Covid-19 lockdown.

They allegedly stopped BBMP personnel from doing their official duty of securing 58 COVID-19-infected persons for being shifted to quarantine centres.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by the accused and said “The Criminal proceedings against these petitioners in the above 5 cases are liable to be quashed without going to the veracity of the offence committed by the accused, whether one offence or different offences, in different place of occurrence. Hence, petition deserves to be allowed.”

As per the prosecution case, on 19.4.2020 between 6.30 p.m. to 6.50 p.m, when the BBMP officials went to secure 58 Covid infected persons, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly, armed with knives, clubs and rods with the intention to spread the infection in Padarayanpura and had obstructed the area, where the Asha workers, Medical Officers belonging to BBMP, were lawfully discharging their official duty.

It was stated that the accused persons caused damage to the public property by breaking chairs, tables, and tents and went to other adjacent roads and caused damages.

The petitioners argued that they are innocent public who do not have any connection with the case. It was stated that their houses are at different places, therefore, without identifying the real culprits, the police have blindly registered the case against these petitioners.

Further, it was stated that the BBMP officials did not come with clean hands to secure COVID-19-infected persons, there is no list of infected persons, and in order to quarantine them, they have not narrated the names of the officials or patients. It was also argued that there was no wound or injury sustained by any of the persons in order to attract Section 307 of the IPC.

It was also said that the statements of witnesses are stereotypical statements and though the police have filed more than 120 accused persons were involved, no property has been damaged, which was seized by the police.

Finally, it was said, “The very prosecution is liable to be quashed, there is a bar under Section 195 (1) a) of Cr.P.C., where the Government officials are required to file private complaint, in respect of violation of the provisions of Sections 172 to 188 of IPC and Disaster Management Act.”

The prosecution opposed the plea saying that the police have registered 5 different FIRs against various accused persons and most of the accused persons are common in all the FIRs, and the time of offence as well as place of offence are altogether different.

It was said that though the offences under Section 188 of IPC, where the private complaint is required to be filed and quashed on the ground, the FIR has been lodged, the remaining offences for damaging the public properties and causing injury, obstructing the public servants were remaining for prosecution. Therefore, it said that a case is required for trial and for framing of charges.

The bench noted though the BBMP officials went to the Padarayanapura area for sealing down on the ground, there were 51 persons infected with the coronavirus, but in the charge sheet there were no details or names of the corona-virus affected persons to be isolated in order to seal down the area.

It said “When the BBMP officials were obstructing the road for sealing down, these petitioners might have agitated against them for sealing down the area, as they were required to come out for purchasing the milk or vegetables or food products for day to day usages, at that time there may be scuffle between them and the alleged incident must have taken place.”

It observed that as per section 195 of Cr.P.C, there is a bar for taking cognizance by the Magistrate, for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC.

Further it said “For the purpose of taking cognizance, offence punishable under 95 Section 51 (B) of the Disaster Management Act, again there is a bar for taking cognizance on the police report, except on the complaint by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority, or any other authority shall be authority in this behalf, by that authority or the Government as the case may be, as per section 60 of the Disaster Manager Act.”

Refusing to accept the contention of the prosecution that other than the non-cognizable offence, the remaining IPC sections shall proceed against the accused persons, the Court allowed the petitions.

Appearance: Advocate Sirajuddin Ahmed for Petitioners.

Additional SPP B.N.Jagadeesh a/w HCGP N. Anitha Girish for Respondents.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

Case Title: Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5913 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 552/2021, 1008/2021, 5799/2022, 5821/2022, 5832/2022 AND 5893/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order