SRI FAROOQ MUGILI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI FAROOQ MUGILI
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O AHAMMED BEARY
R/AT MUGULI HOUSE
KAROPADY VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
DK DIST 574279

…PETITIONER
(BY Ms HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VITLA POLICE STATION
MANGALURU
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560001

2. SRI B. VIGNESHWARA BHAT
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O GOVINDA BHAT
R/AT ANIYALAKODI MANE
KUDDALADKA
KAROPADI VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
DK DISTRICT 574279

…RESPONDENTS











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC.NO.1496/2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
CR.NO.183/2018 OF VITAL P.S., BANTWAL, , FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 143,147,148,506,427 R/W 149 OF IPC, U/S 2(a)(b) OF KPDLP
ACT, ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BANTWALA, D.K., AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) Quash the entire proceedings in
CC.No.1496/2021 registered by the respondent
no.1 in Cr.No.183/2018 of Vital P.S., Bantwal, ,
for the offences p/u/s 143,147,148,506,427 r/w
149 of IPC, u/s 2(a)(b) of KPDLP act, on the file
of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala,
D.K., against the petitioner
.

2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 19.05.2018,
pursuant to which an FIR in Crime No.183/2018
came to be registered by Vitla Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
506, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for
short) and Section 2(a) and (b) of the Prevention of
Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


(hereinafter referred to as the 'KPDLP Act' for
short).

3. The allegation in the complaint is that, on
19.05.2018, at about 8.45 p.m., the petitioners,
along with several others numbering approximately
150 to 200, arrived at the spot on motorcycles and
caused damage to the property belonging to the
complainant as also to Devarakatte (God's platform
or Sacred place). It was alleged that the said persons
had indulged in acts resulting in destruction of and
damage to the aforesaid properties, requiring action
to be initiated against them.

4. Investigation having been completed, a charge-sheet
came to be filed on 26.07.2020 for the aforesaid
offences. It is challenging the proceedings initiated
pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet that the
petitioner is before this Court.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the charge-sheet has been filed
solely on the basis of the statements made by the
complainant and his associates. No independent
witnesses have been examined during the course of
investigation or their statements incorporated in the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


charge-sheet to substantiate the allegations made in
the complaint.

6. Learned counsel further relies upon the mahazar
drawn during the course of investigation and submits
that a perusal thereof does not indicate any damage
having been caused to the properties referred to in
the complaint. There is no description of any
particular damage or destruction to Devarakatte or
to the property belonging to the complainant.

7. She further submits that no wound certificate or
other medical material has been placed on record to
substantiate the allegation that the complainant was
assaulted. Even the statements of the complainant
and the other witnesses do not disclose any injury
having been sustained by the complainant.

8. In that view of the matter, learned counsel submits
that the material collected during investigation does
not disclose the commission of any of the offences
alleged against the petitioner and that continuation
of the criminal proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. She, therefore, seeks
quashing of the proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025



9. Heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. Ashok Kumar Shetty K.,
learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned
HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent
No.2, though served, has chosen to remain
unrepresented. Perused the papers.

10. The complaint was initially lodged alleging
commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 427 read with Section
149 of the IPC and Section 2(a) and (b) of the KPDLP
Act. However, the charge-sheet laid on 26.07.2020
invokes Sections 143, 147, 148 and 506 read with
Section 149 of the IPC and Section 2(a) and (b) of
the KPDLP Act. The offence punishable under Section
427 of the IPC has not been included in the charge-
sheet.

11. Insofar as the offences under Section 2(a) and (b) of
the KPDLP Act are concerned, the essential
requirement for attracting the said provisions is the
commission of mischief resulting in loss or damage to
property. Section 2(a) deals with commission,
attempt, instigation, incitement or abetment of
mischief within the meaning of Section 425 of the
IPC, resulting in loss or damage to property. Section
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


2(b), likewise, contemplates causing loss or damage
to property in an area during the period when an
assembly of five or more persons is prohibited by law
or when such assembly is deemed to be an unlawful
assembly under Section 141 of the IPC.

12. Thus, irrespective of whether the assembly was
prohibited or constituted an unlawful assembly, the
requirement of loss or damage to property is
essential for attracting the provisions of Section 2 of
the KPDLP Act.

13. In the present case, the allegation in the complaint is
that the petitioner, along with several others, caused
damage to Devarakatte and the property belonging
to the complainant. However, the mahazar drawn
during the course of investigation does not disclose
any such damage or destruction. No particular
damage to the property has been identified or
recorded in the mahazar. The Investigating Officer
has also not placed any other material before this
Court to substantiate the alleged damage or loss.

14. In the absence of any material indicating that loss or
damage was caused to the property, the essential
ingredients of Section 2(a) and (b) of the KPDLP Act
are not made out. Consequently, the invocation of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


the said provisions against the petitioner cannot be
sustained.

15. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 506 and 149 of the IPC are
concerned, the allegation is that the petitioner, along
with approximately 100 or more persons, came to
the spot on motorcycles, raised slogans in support of
a political party and, when the complainant
approached them, abused, threatened and assaulted
him.

16. The material collected during investigation,
particularly the statements of the complainant and
the other witnesses, requires consideration. A
perusal of the said statements does not disclose any
specific injury having been caused to the
complainant. In fact, the statements, as placed
before this Court, do not indicate any wound or
physical injury having been sustained by him.

17. Though the absence of a wound certificate, by itself,
may not be sufficient to negate an allegation of
assault, the relevant consideration is whether the
statements of the witnesses disclose the commission
of an act involving force or violence in prosecution of
the common object of an unlawful assembly. In the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


present case, the statements do not disclose any
specific act of violence or other material which would
substantiate the allegation of rioting.

18. It is also necessary to notice that, for the purpose of
attracting Section 143 of the IPC, the assembly must
satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the IPC.
An assembly of five or more persons does not
become an unlawful assembly merely because of the
number of persons gathered at a particular place.
The common object of the persons composing the
assembly must fall within one or more of the
categories enumerated under Section 141 of the IPC.

19. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section
147 of the IPC, there must be use of force or
violence by an unlawful assembly, or by any member
thereof, in prosecution of its common object. For the
offence under Section 148 of the IPC, the further
requirement is that the person concerned must be
armed with a deadly weapon or with an article which,
when used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death.

20. In the present case, the material placed along with
the charge-sheet does not disclose the existence of
any common object falling within the scope of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


Section 141 of the IPC. The mere fact that a large
number of persons allegedly arrived at the spot on
motorcycles and raised slogans in support of a
political party would not, by itself, constitute an
unlawful assembly. There must be some material to
indicate that the persons assembled shared a
common object of the nature contemplated under
Section 141 of the IPC.

21. Further, the charge-sheet material does not disclose
any specific material indicating that the petitioner
was armed with a deadly weapon or had participated
in any act of violence in prosecution of the alleged
common object so as to attract Section 148 of the
IPC.

22. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 506
of the IPC is concerned, the statements recorded
during investigation do not disclose the specific
nature of the threat allegedly extended to the
complainant or the circumstances indicating that
such threat was intended to cause alarm or to
compel the complainant to do or omit to do any act.
A general allegation of having been abused or
threatened, without the necessary particulars to
constitute criminal intimidation, would not, by itself,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 506
of the IPC.

23. Section 149 of the IPC provides for constructive
liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for
an offence committed by any member thereof in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly
or which the members knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of such object. However,
the application of the said provision is dependent
upon the existence of an unlawful assembly and the
establishment of a common object falling within the
scope of Section 141 of the IPC.

24. In the present case, when the material collected
during investigation does not disclose the existence
of an unlawful assembly or any specific common
object attributable to the persons assembled, the
provisions of Section 149 of the IPC cannot be
invoked merely on the basis that several persons had
gathered at the spot.

25. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there are no independent witnesses
supporting the prosecution case, by itself, may not
be sufficient to quash the proceedings, since the
statements of the complainant and other witnesses
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


can constitute evidence in accordance with law.
However, in the present case, even on a perusal of
the statements of the complainant and the other
witnesses, the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged are not disclosed.

26. On enquiry, the learned HCGP is unable to point out
any other material collected during investigation
which would indicate the commission of the offences
alleged or establish the involvement of the petitioner
therein. The mahazar does not disclose any damage
to the property, the witness statements do not
substantiate the alleged acts of violence, and there is
no material to establish the common object
necessary for attracting Sections 143, 147 and 149
of the IPC. The ingredients necessary to attract
Sections 148 and 506 of the IPC are also not
disclosed from the material placed before this Court.

27. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the material collected during
investigation, even if taken at its face value, does not
disclose the commission of the offences alleged
against the petitioner. Continuation of the
proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of
material constituting the essential ingredients of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60751
CRL.P No. 3961 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010185962025


alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.

28. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to
quash the proceedings.

29. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed .

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1496/2021
registered by respondent No.1 in
Cr.No.183/2018 registered by Vital Police
Station pending on the file of Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bantwala, D.K., against
the petitioner.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0