Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D.K. Shivakumar, the President of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the private complaint in PCR No.1453/2021, the order of cognizance dated 25.01.2021, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.3169/2022 pending before the 42nd ACMM, Bengaluru. The complaint alleged that the petitioner along with about 350 people took out a protest against BBMP regarding increase of property tax, despite the Covid-19 guidelines. The crime was registered on 04.01.2022, and the Magistrate took cognizance on 25.01.2022 for offences under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 IPC. The petitioner challenged the cognizance order on the ground that the essential ingredients for the offences were not made out. The High Court analyzed the provisions and found that Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act requires violation of an order made under Section 2(1) of the Act, and no such order was placed on record. Further, Section 60 of the Act bars cognizance except on a complaint by the competent authority, and the Magistrate took cognizance on a police report, which is not a complaint under Section 60. Regarding Section 188 IPC, the court noted that the complaint did not specify any order duly promulgated by a public servant that was disobeyed. Consequently, the High Court held that the cognizance order was unsustainable and quashed the proceedings. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cognizance of Offence - Section 51(b) Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Requirement of Order Under Section 2(1) - The offence under Section 51(b) requires violation of an order made under Section 2(1) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. In the absence of any such order being placed on record, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is unsustainable. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Law - Cognizance of Offence - Section 188 IPC - Disobedience of Order Duly Promulgated - The offence under Section 188 IPC requires disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The complaint must disclose the specific order violated. In the present case, no such order was specified, rendering the cognizance bad in law. (Paras 5-6) C) Criminal Law - Cognizance of Offence - Section 60 Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Bar on Taking Cognizance - Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint made by the competent authority. The Magistrate took cognizance on a police report, which is not a complaint under Section 60, thus the cognizance is invalid. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order taking cognizance for offences under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 IPC is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 25.01.2021 taking cognizance in PCR No.1453/2021 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.3169/2022 are quashed.
Law Points
- Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act
- 2005 requires violation of an order made under Section 2(1) of the Act
- Section 188 IPC requires disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant
- cognizance under Section 51(b) cannot be taken without a complaint by the competent authority under Section 60 of the Act
