The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad, who was booked in 2022 for allegedly squatting in front of a train at a railway station in Bengaluru and causing its detention. The petition was filed challenging the trial court’s order taking cognizance of offences registered under various provisions of the Railways Act related to interference with railway amenities, trespass, endangering safety of persons, and obstruction of train movement. The High Court observed that the order taking cognizance by the trial court did not inspire confidence and found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out in the case. The Court noted that the mere allegation of squatting on the railway track resulting in a train being delayed for approximately 39 minutes did not establish that the accused had interfered with railway amenities, endangered passenger safety, or obstructed running of a train in the manner contemplated by the statutory offences.
The incident, which took place at Whitefield Railway Station, involved Congress party members reportedly staging a demonstration and raising slogans against the Central Government’s policies. It was alleged that the demonstrators, including the petitioner, squatted on the track at platform number three, causing the train’s detention. Following the conduct of the demonstration, the station master informed the Railway Protection Force, which resulted in the registration of an FIR and a subsequent investigation. The Railway Protection Force filed a charge sheet, and the trial court took cognizance of the offences and issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Challenging this, the petitioner contended before the High Court that the provisions of the Railways Act had been wrongly invoked since the allegation, as framed, did not include any claim of risk to passenger safety or damage to railway equipment, and hence could not sustain the charges invoked by the prosecution.
While hearing the petition, the State argued that the petitioner and others had in fact squatted on the railway track. However, the High Court found that even if such conduct was accepted as true, the statutory requirements for the offences under the Railways Act were not fulfilled, and that the trial court had not applied its mind properly in framing the cognizance order. The High Court also referred to relevant judicial precedents from other high courts dealing with similar situations and took a view that none of the essential elements of the sections invoked were made out by the material on record. In concluding that the petition should succeed, the Court emphasised that error in cognizance without proper examination of the ingredients of the alleged offences could not be allowed to proceed to trial. On this basis, the High Court quashed the proceedings in respect of the criminal case against Mohammed Haris Nalapad, effectively relieving him from the charges that had been brought for his alleged participation in the protest which led to the delay of the train.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.