Karnataka HC Quashes Order Prohibiting Sri Rama Sene Founder From Meeting Praveen Netturu's Family

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Mutalik and said,

"The order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the District Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mangaluru, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to issue a notice and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."

Further it said, "The order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Police Commissioner, Mangaluru, stands dismissed as having become infructuous."

As per the petition, the petitioner came to Mangaluru on July 29 but was told by the Police Officers  his entry to Dakshina Kannada and Mangaluru City is prohibited under Section 144(3) of the Cr.P.C. The court was told that the petitioner subsequently requested the authorities to permit him to meet the family of Netturu's family, and undertook to abide by the conditions, if imposed upon him.

Mutalik's counsel argued that the order passed by the District Magistrate is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court and also violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court was told that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the circumstances narrated in the order. Seeking quashing of the order, the petitioner also said principles of natural justice were not followed.

Findings:

The bench, referring to Section 144 of CrPC which pertains to power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger, in the order dated September 2 said:

"The only reference in the order is the communication from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, who appears to have sought issuance of an order at the hands of Deputy Commissioner under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. The contents of the order would be in the realm of seeking to indicate that if the petitioner would visit the family of the deceased Praveen Netturu, it is likely to result in breach of public peace."

Further it said, "The reason behind this is, wherever the petitioner has gone and spoken in public, the result is that, there is some breach of public peace. Except saying this, no other apprehension that is brought out to issue an ex parte order under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., as a prohibitory measure banning the entry of the petitioner into the District."

It added, "The order does not indicate any notice or prior intimation given to the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 27.07.2022 is thus, without any such substance and also does not indicate that it is for a period of two months."

Noting that in terms of the statute, orders can be passed ex parte only on certain emergent Situations. the bench said,

"The kind of emergent situation that is narrated to pass an order against the petitioner is that, in the past, wherever the petitioner has entered there has been breach of public peace. This cannot be in the considered view of this Court an emergent situation to pass an order ex parte. No other reason is forthcoming in the order."

Further it held that,

"Sub-section 4 of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., empowers the competent authority to issue prohibitory orders only for a period of two months. The period of two months is also coming to an end. With these facts, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the District Magistrate, to consider any explanation that the petitioner would give and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."

Case Title: PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7611 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 370

Date of Order: 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: MANJUNATH S. HALAWAR., ADVOCATE for petitioner; KIRAN S.JAVALI, SPP-I A/W SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP for respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order