ORDER : (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.) In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioners above named, most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order of cognizance dated 13/06/2024, which reads as: "Perused the charge sheet material submitted by I.O. Prima Facie case made out. Hence, cognizance for the offences Punishable U/Sec. 353, 427, 447, 34 of the IPC , Sec.192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Sec.51 of Disaster Management Act is taken. Office is hereby directed to register Criminal Case against the accused No.1 to 3 in register No.III for the above offences. Issue summons to accused No.1 to 3", And the consequent proceedings in C.C.No.3693/2024 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, At Bengaluru and pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 – Revenue Inspector filed the instant complaint dated 01.09.2022 against the petitioners which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.263/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act , 1964 (for short, 'the KLR Act') and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act , 2005 (for short, 'the Act, 2005') as well as Sections 353 , 427, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ' IPC '). 4. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.1 – Police authorities having conducted investigation, filed a charge sheet which is currently pending in C.C. No.3693/2024 before the Trial Court, aggrieved by this, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in so far as the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the KLR Act are concerned, in the case of Smt.Lalitha Sastry v. State of Karnataka and others [W.P. No.3969/2007 and connected cases disposed of on 22.09.2008; 2008 SCCOnLine Kar 428], which was followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaliyanda A Poovamma and Others v. The State of Karnataka and another [Crl. P. No.8024/2017 disposed of on 07.02.2023], this Court has held that in the absence of mandatory notice of 15 days, the proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the KLR Act, would not be maintainable and the same deserve to be quashed. In Lalitha Sastry's case (supra), this Court held as under: "In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners are seeking the relief of quashing the complaint filed by the Tahsildar against them with the jurisdictional Station House Officer and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the charge sheets filed against them. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these cases is, they are in occupation of the disputed land in question in their own right. It is not a Government land. They have not encroached upon any portion of the Government land. In fact some of them are purchasers of such lands. They are put in possession by their vendors, on the basis of documents handed over to them at the time of purchase. They are not aware of the factual position and may be innocent also. In spite of the same these proceedings are initiated against them as if they have encroached the Government land which is made an offence now by amendment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by introducing Section 192A. Some of them contend if any survey had been conducted with any notice to them and if it was shown to them that the land which is in their occupation or any portion of it is a Government land, they would have surrendered the said land. However, without giving any such opportunity, without conducting any survey in their presence, on the basis of Mahazars conducted, on the basis of documents to which they are not parties, a complaint is lodged by the Tahsildar with the jurisdictional police who in turn has initiated criminal proceedings and charge sheets are filed. Therefore, they seek for quashing of the entire proceedings. 3. After notice the Government entered appearance and supported their action. Therefore, they seek for quashing of the entire proceedings. 3. After notice the Government entered appearance and supported their action. After hearing the matter at length when it was suggested to the Government that an opportunity ought to have been given to these petitioners and persons who are similarly placed, who if they are convinced that they are in occupation of a Government land, without any intention of entering upon the said land or continued to occupy the said land, they may voluntarily give up such possession. Time was taken to consider whether a provision could be made to adjudicate these aspects before initiation of proceedings. Today a memo is filed on behalf of the Government enclosing a circular dated 8.9.2008. The said circular reads as under:— 4. From the aforesaid circular it is clear the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192A of the Act. In fact it stipulates a procedure under which a show cause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days. If no objections are received authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to realise whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution. That would meet the ends of justice. In that view of the matter, as the criminal prosecution is launched against all these petitioners without affording an opportunity to have their say and in the light of the circular which is passed by the Government, these proceedings cannot be sustained. 5 . In W.P. Nos. 3969/2007, 1023/2008 and 3550/2008 the petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of the said circular. 5 . In W.P. Nos. 3969/2007, 1023/2008 and 3550/2008 the petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of the said circular. However, for the time being - 1 0 - they submit they would not press the said point. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the said provision is not considered. 6. Hence, I pass the following order:— (a) Writ Petitions are allowed. (b) The impugned orders and proceedings are hereby quashed. (c) Liberty is reserved to the State or its authorities to comply with the requirement as contemplated in the circular before initiating any action against the petitioners if need arise. (d) All the contentions urged in the Writ Petitions are kept open to be adjudicated if and when occasion arises." 6. In Kaliyanda Poovamma's case (supra), this Court held as under: "Petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 192-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act , 1964, (for short KLR Act,) alleging that, petitioners accused by encroaching the Government Land are in possession and enjoyment of the same which is evident from the report submitted by the Revenue Authorities after spot inspection. The cognizance taken for the aforesaid offence is impugned in this petition. 2. Mr. Ravindra Kamath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners counsel submits that, the - 1 1 - registration of the FIR culminating in filing of the charge sheet stands vitiated for not issuing 15 days clear show cause notice calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachment as specified in Section 192 A of the KLR Act. 3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that, after issuing notice to the petitioners-accused, a survey was conducted, and during the course of survey, it was found that petitioners- accused have encroached the Government land, and as such, committed the aforesaid offence under Section 192A of the KLR Act. 4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastry -Vs- State of Karnataka & Ors, in W.P.No.3969/2007 and other connected matters disposed of on 22.09.2008 at para 4 has held as follows: "4. From the aforesaid circular it is clear the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192A of the Act. From the aforesaid circular it is clear the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192A of the Act. In fact it stipulates a procedure under which a show cause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days. If no objections are received authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the - 1 2 - event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government to satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to relies whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution. That would meet the ends of justice. In that view of matter, as the criminal prosecution is launched against all these petitioners without affording an opportunity to have their say and in the light of the circular which is passed by the Government, these proceedings cannot be sustained." 6. In the instant case, Tahasildar concerned has not issued 15 days clear notice calling upon the petitioners- accused to file objections as to why they should not be vacated from the subject property as mandated in the Government Circular dated 8.9.2008. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal petition is allowed; ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.708/2015 (FIR NO.1/2013 of Gonikoppal Police Station) on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC at Ponnampet, Kodugu is hereby quashed; iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to take appropriate action in accordance with law for clearing the alleged encroachments of the Government Land by the petitioners. 7. 7. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the requisite mandatory notice of 15 days was not issued by the respondent No.2 prior to initiating proceedings under Section 192-A of the KLR Act which are not maintainable and the same deserve to be quashed. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, 2005 is concerned, under identical circumstances in the case of D.K Shivakumar v. The State of Karnataka and another [Crl. P. No.3432/2023 disposed of on 07.07.2023], this Court held as under: "The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 25.01.2021 by which the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences pursuant to PCR.No.1453/2021 and registers a C.C.No.3169/2022 for offences punishable under Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act , 2005 ('Act' for short) and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (' IPC ' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Arnav A. Bagalwadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahesh - 1 4 - Shetty, learned HCGP appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows: The petitioner along with others are said to have taken out a protest with about 350 people against the BBMP regarding increase of property tax. The allegation is, it was taken, despite the guidelines of Covid-19 existing at that point in time. The crime comes to be registered on 04.01.2022 on the said allegation. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 25.01.2022, takes cognizance of the offence and registers a C.C.No.25317/2022 and issue summons to the accused. The petitioner is accused No.1. The taking of cognizance is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there has been violation of Section 60 of the Act, inasmuch as no notice as is required under Section 60(2) has been issued to the petitioner, prior to taking of the cognizance of the offence under Section 51 (b) of the Act. He would submit that Section 188 of the IPC is an offshoot of Section 51 of the Act and therefore, proceedings should be quashed. 5. He would submit that Section 188 of the IPC is an offshoot of Section 51 of the Act and therefore, proceedings should be quashed. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the charge sheet has already been filed and therefore, the further proceedings must be permitted to be continued, as the petitioners are guilty of violating the Act. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 51 (b) of the Act. To consider the said issue, it is germane to notice certain provisions of the Act. Section 51 of the Act deals with punishment for obstruction and reads as follows: "51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.—(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause— —(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause—" (a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences. (Emphasis supplied) Section 51 (b) of the Act directs that whoever would refuse to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Government, as the case would be, become an offence under the Act. 8. Section 60 of the Act deals with cognizance for the offences and reads as follows: "60. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by— (a) the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid." (Emphasis supplied) Section 60(b) mandates that, if cognizance is to be taken for an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, a person who is arrayed as accused should have been given a notice not less than 30 days in the manner prescribed. 9. The prescription is in terms of the Rules. Rules, i.e. the Disaster Management (notice of alleged offence) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 of the said Rules, reads as follows: "3. 9. The prescription is in terms of the Rules. Rules, i.e. the Disaster Management (notice of alleged offence) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 of the said Rules, reads as follows: "3. Notice of alleged offence and intention to make a complaint .—A notice under clause (b) of section 60 of the Act by a person, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint shall be delivered to, or left at, the office of one of the following— (a) in the case of the Central Government, except where the complaint relates to a railway, the Secretary incharge of the concerned Ministry or the Department in that Government; (b) in the case of the Central Government where the complaint relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway; (c) in the case of State Government, the Secretary incharge of the concerned Department in that Government; (d) in the case of the National Authority, the Secretary or, if there is no Secretary, the Additional Secretary, of the National Authority; (e) in the case of a State Authority, the Chief Executive Officer of the State Authority; (f) in the case of a District Authority, the Chief Executive Officer of the State Authority." (Emphasis supplied) The Rule mandates that a notice under Section 60(b) of the Act by any person should be issued on/of his intention to make a complaint, and that shall be delivered to the person against whom complaint is said to be made. The manner of issuance and delivery are narrated from (a) to (f). Therefore, there is prescription under the Rules as to the action to be taken under Section 60(b) of the Act. 10. On the bedrock of the aforesaid mandate under the Act and the Rules, the case at hand requires to be noticed. The incident takes place on 04.01.2021, around 10.30 a.m. and the crime is registered on 04.01.2021 for the offence punishable under Section 51 (b) of the Act and Section 188 of the IPC . The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on 25.01.2022. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance reads as follows: "Perused the compliant. Complainant is a Public Servant. Hence, recording of Sworn Statement is dispensed with as contemplated u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. cognizance is taken for the offence punishable u/s.51(b) of NDA Act. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on 25.01.2022. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance reads as follows: "Perused the compliant. Complainant is a Public Servant. Hence, recording of Sworn Statement is dispensed with as contemplated u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. cognizance is taken for the offence punishable u/s.51(b) of NDA Act. I have perused the documents produced by the complainant and considered the allegation made in the complaint. The allegation are supported by documents and if allegations are not denied the same will lead to the conviction of the accused. There are sufficient materials to issue process against the accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER 1. Register the case as CC 2. Issue summons against accused no.1 to 9 for the offence punishable u/s. 51(b) of NDA Act. 3. Call on: 26.02.2021." (Emphasis added) The learned Magistrate prior to taking cognizance ought to have noticed the rigor of Section 60(b) as to whether a notice has been issued to the accused in terms of Rule 3 of the said Rules (supra). Ostensibly, the mandate under the Act or the Rules is not followed by the complainant and it is not even noticed by the learned Magistrate prior to the taking of cognizance. It is therefore, contrary to law. 11. In the light of it being contrary to law, is resultantly rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability of it, would lead to its obliteration. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, following ORDER I. Criminal petition is allowed. II. The order dated 25.01.2021 passed in C.C.No.3169/2022 on the file of the 42 nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioner." 8. In the instant case, the material on record will also indicate that the petitioners cannot be said to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, 2005 and consequently, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners for the alleged offence also deserves to be quashed. 9. Insofar as the allegations pertaining to Section 353 of IPC are concerned, in the case of Syed Esa Ibrahim and another v. State of Karnataka and another [NC:2023: KHC: 38832] , this Court held as under: "Petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2are sought to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 34 1, 353, 506 and 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC . 2. 2. Case of the prosecution is that; accused No.1 was running the hotel business beyond 11.30 pm on the date of incident, and when the complainant and other police personnel questioned the same, the accused abused them with unparliamentary words, and threatened them with dire consequences and restrained them from discharging their official duties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even accepting the allegations made against the petitioners, on the face of it, does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that the petitioners by restraining the police personnel from discharging their duties and abusing them have committed the aforesaid offences and the veracity of the allegations can be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be gone into in this petition. 5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Section 353 of IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter the public servant from discharge of his duties and it reads thus: “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.’’ 7. To constitute an offence under Section 353 of IPC , a person must have assaulted or used criminal force in deterring the public servant from discharging the official duties. The term ‘criminal force’ is defined under Sections 349 and 350 of IPC . A reading of the aforesaid provisions indicate that, to use criminal force means causing injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom criminal force is used. 8. The term ‘criminal force’ is defined under Sections 349 and 350 of IPC . A reading of the aforesaid provisions indicate that, to use criminal force means causing injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom criminal force is used. 8. In the instant case, there is no allegation, much less, any material against the petitioners herein, either assaulting or using criminal force, so as to deter the police personnel from discharging their duties, except that the petitioners abused and threatened the police personnel which does not satisfy the requirement of Sections 349 and 350 of IPC . Therefore, the essential elements to constitute the commission of an offence under Section 353 of IPC is conspicuously absent. 9. Though it is alleged that the petitioners are running the hotel beyond the stipulated period, utmost may constitute an offence under Section 188 of IPC and the cognizance of the said offences can be taken only upon a complaint in writing by the officers prescribed under Section 189 of IPC . However, the police to overcome the said provision have not invoked the said provision. 10. To constitute an offence under Section 341 of IPC , a person must have wrongfully restrained another person from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits. In the instant case, there is no allegation or material that the petitioners restrained the police personnel from proceeding beyond circumstantial limits, except the allegation that they restrained the police personnel from discharging their duties. Threatening the police personnel with dire consequences has not resulted in breach of public peace or committing any other offense by the complainant or his staff, which is an essential ingredient to constitute commission of offence under Section 506 of IPC . Therefore, in view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not sub-serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed . The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.1152/2021 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna stands quashed." 10. In the instant case, the material on record comprising of the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material etc. would clearly indicate that necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC are conspicuously absent and not forthcoming and consequently, the impugned proceedings for this offence also deserve to be quashed. 11. In the instant case, the material on record comprising of the FIR, complaint, charge sheet material etc. would clearly indicate that necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC are conspicuously absent and not forthcoming and consequently, the impugned proceedings for this offence also deserve to be quashed. 11. The offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC are also not made out from the material on record warranting interference in the present petition. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire allegations made against the petitioners pertain to the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction said to have been made by the petitioners on a Rajakaluve (storm water drain) which is said to have been encroached upon by the petitioners. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 and the land revenue authorities have already demolished the wall allegedly put up by the petitioners on the alleged storm water drain and consequently, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also. 13. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.3693/2024 arising out of Crime No.263/2022 registered by the respondent No.1 - Police for the offences punishable under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 as well as Sections 353, 427, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, are hereby quashed.