Criminal Petition No. 3884 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3884 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR KUMAR M S/O LATE MUNI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A ASHWINI LAYOUT CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125. 2. SWARNAKUMAR GC S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O JIDERAHALLI VILLAGE HIREKATTIGENAHALLI POST CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125. 3. VICKY S S/O SHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/A WARD NO.27, SHANTHINAGAR CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125. 4. DILIP KUMAR S/O KONAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O MUNGAAHALLI CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125. 5. VIGNESH B S/O BALACHANDRA M AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/A NO.903, 6TH CROSS 3RD BLOCK, GANDHINAGAR ROBERTSONPET BANGARPET TALUK Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 KOLAR DISTRICT-563116. 6. N VAMSHI S/O DHARMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O B KOTHAKOTTA SURAPAVARAPALLI ANDHRA PRADESH-520008. 7. UPPATULLA JAGADISH S/O UPPATULLA RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O DADAM VADDIPALLI THAMBALAPALLI CHITTOOR(ANNAMAIAH) ANDHRA PRADESH-517001. 8. SHIVASHANKARA REDDY @ PEDDA CHINNA MUDDANNAGIRI SHIVASHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE JAYACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O VANAMAREDDY GARUPALLI PEDDAPALLI, KURUBALAKOTA MANDALAM TAMBALAPALLI TALUK CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517001.
Legal Reasoning
9. REPENA SRINIVASULU S/O REPENA UTTANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A NO.08, KANNIMUDUGU TAMBALAPALLI MANDALAM CHITTOOR(ANNAMAIAH) DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517418. 10. VENKATAREDDY S/O VENKATASWAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.8, 2ND MAIN KANNAMPALLI NEAR BANGALORE ROAD CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125. (BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED MUBARAK.,ADVOCATE) PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560066. 2. MR SUNIL KUMAR POLICE INSPECTOR WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560066 (BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001. (BY SRI. MV ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1) RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.QUASH THE FIR AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN CR.NO.162/2024 OF WHITE FILED P.S BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 25(1)(1-AA) AND 25(1)(1-B)(b) OF THE ARMS ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE A.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners/accused, who have been charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(1AA) and 25(1)(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), are before this Court seeking relief. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 2. Respondent No.2 lodged the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) stating that while he was on duty at the police station, he observed a car parked on the main road outside, with three to four persons moving suspiciously around it. Upon inspecting the car, he noticed that one person sitting in the driver’s seat was holding a long iron object. The complainant returned to the police station and, along with his staff, conducted a detailed inspection of the car. Upon inspection, they discovered and seized three iron longs, two iron rods, two iron machetes, five coloured paper spray bottles, and two iron pattis under a panchanama. The individuals moving suspiciously were also apprehended. Thereafter, the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(1AA) and 25(1)(1B)(b) of the Act. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha and learned Senior Counsel Sri Mohammed Mubaraka, representing the petitioners, and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent-State. 4. A perusal of the FIR indicates that three iron longs, two iron rods, two iron machetes, five coloured paper spray bottles, and two iron pattis were seized from the car. Section 2(c) of the Act defines “arms” as articles of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, and includes firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of machinery for manufacturing arms. However, it excludes articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural use, such as lathis or ordinary walking sticks, and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or being converted into serviceable weapons. 5. The State Government, vide notification dated 28.08.2017, specified that arms other than firearms—such as sharp-edged and deadly weapons like swords, battle axes, knives, and other such weapons with blades longer than 9 inches or wider than 2 inches (other than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific, or industrial purposes)—shall come within the definition of “arms” under Section 2(c) of the Act. 6. In the present case, there is no material to substantiate that the blades seized from the car were longer than 9 inches or wider than 2 inches, except for a general assertion that “deadly weapons” were seized. Therefore, the registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(1AA) of the Act lacks legal basis. Despite this, this Court, vide order dated 19.06.2024, directed the Investigating Officer to provide - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 an explanation for invoking Section 25(1)(1AA) of the Act. However, without providing such explanation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(1B)(b) of the Act. 7. Section 25(1)(1B)(b) of the Act states that whoever acquires, has in his possession, or carries in any place specified by notification under Section 4 any arms of such class or description as specified in that notification, in contravention of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than one year, and which may extend up to three years. 8. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue a notification in the Official Gazette if it is of the opinion that, having regard to the prevailing circumstances in any area, it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to regulate the acquisition, possession, or carrying of arms (other than firearms). Once such notification is issued, no person shall acquire, possess, or carry such arms in the specified area. 9. In light of Section 4 of the Act, the State Government issued a notification dated 28.08.2017. The arms seized in this case do not fall within the definition of “arms” under Section 2(c) of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 essential elements constituting the alleged offence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It appears that the offence under Section 25(1)(1AA) of the Act was deliberately invoked against the petitioners, since it is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years or life, and is triable by the Sessions Court, thereby depriving the petitioners of bail. 10. However, after investigation, the police dropped the offence under Section 25(1)(1AA) of the Act in the charge sheet and instead invoked Section 25(1)(1B)(b) of the Act, which is punishable with imprisonment up to five years. 11. It is therefore evident that the case was deliberately registered against the petitioners under Section 25(1)(1AA) of the Act solely to deprive them of their right to seek bail. The registration and subsequent filing of the charge sheet, in the absence of necessary ingredients, constitute a clear abuse of the process of law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13791 CRL.P No. 3884 of 2024 ORDER;
Decision
(i) The Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceeding in CC.No.3747/2024 on the file Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore rural District, Bangalore is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59