SRI. KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE) v. R2- SERVED)

MR POLICE IMAM @ IMAM @ T H IMAM HUSSAIN, S/O T. HABEEBULLA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCCUPATION: HEAD CONSTABLE, SRIRAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA TOWN – 577 501 NOW WORKING IN RAMPURA POLICE STATION, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, R/AT RAMPURA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 (BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION, CHITRADURG TOWN – 577 501 INVESTIGATED BY CID POLICE BANGALORE (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGLAORE – 560 001) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

MR NAGARAJA D.M., S/O MALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LORRY DRIVER, R/AT DODDABELAVANGALA VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2- SERVED) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18976 CRL.P No. 81 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST HIM WHICH IS NOW PENDING IN S.C.NO.41/2022 ON THE FILE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS OF HONBLE JUDGE, CHITRADURAGA INCLUDING THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AS PER ANNEXURES – C AND D AND ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 07.02.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.89/2022 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M CHITRADURGA AS PER ANNEXURE-B WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CR.NO.144/2021 OF EXTENSION P.S. OF CHITRADURGA TOWN AS PER ANNEXURE-A FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 420, 489(c), 212 R/W 34, 37 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner – accused No.16 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.41/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 489(c), 212 r/w Sections 34 and 37 of IPC on the file of the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, including charge sheet at Annexures – C and D and order dated 07.02.2022 passed in C.C.No.89/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chitradurga at Annexure – B arising out of Crime No.144/2021 of Extension Police Station, Chitradurga Town.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18976 CRL.P No. 81 of 2025 HC-KAR

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, the complaint dated 06.12.2021 was lodged against three accused persons viz., Chandrashekhar, Murthy and Manjunatha, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Subsequently, after investigation, charge sheet was filed arraigning not only the aforesaid three accused persons, but also against totally 19 accused persons, amongst whom the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.16. In this context, a perusal of the statement of witnesses, documents and charge sheet and Additional charge sheet materials will indicate that the sole allegation made against the petitioner is that he was harboring accused No.1 by intimating about registration of the impugned FIR and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 212 IPC.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the provisions contained under Section 212 IPC in order to point out that necessary ingredients constituting the aforesaid offences have not been made out and except alleging that the petitioner had informed accused No.1 about registering of the impugned FIR against him there are no other allegations or materials to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offence under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18976 CRL.P No. 81 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 212 IPC and hence, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – accused No.16 deserve to be quashed.

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. – (1999) 2 SCC 288 and Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India and another – (2016) 9 SCC 473 cases, the Apex Court has held that immediately upon registration of the FIR, the police authorities are required to upload the same at the official website of the State. In the instant case, the FIR was registered online and petitioner being the Head Constable at Srirampura Police Station, Chitradurga, merely informing accused No.1 about the registration of FIR cannot be treated or construed as an offence under Section 212 IPC and the material on record establishes that the petitioner was not originally arraigned as accused in the FIR and subsequently arraigning only for the offence punishable under Section 212 of IPC would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18976 CRL.P No. 81 of 2025 HC-KAR