Pranav B Prem

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of harbouring a convicted offender, ruling that to attract liability under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is essential to establish that the accused had knowledge about the conviction of the offender and intentionally harboured him. A Single Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by Udaya Kumar Shetty, seeking to quash the case registered against him for allegedly harbouring a convicted murderer. The Court held that in the absence of any material proving the petitioner’s knowledge of the conviction, the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Case Background

The case stemmed from the conviction of one Sharan @ Sharan Poojary @ Rohidas @ Sharan Akashbhavan, who was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and murder in S.C. No.152/2011 by the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Mangaluru. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 120B, 109, and 302 IPC. This conviction was later upheld by the Karnataka High Court in Crl.A.No.807/2017 on September 27, 2023. Following the confirmation of the conviction, the police attempted to take Sharan into custody, but he had gone into hiding. Based on their search efforts, the police traced him to the residence of the petitioner, Udaya Kumar Shetty. Upon finding Sharan present at the petitioner’s house, the police arrested him and subsequently registered a case against Shetty under Section 216 IPC, alleging that he had deliberately provided shelter to the fugitive to prevent his arrest. However, Shetty contended that he had no prior knowledge of Sharan’s conviction and had no intent to harbour him. He argued that the prosecution had failed to provide any evidence proving that he was aware of Sharan’s legal status as a convicted offender.

Court’s Observations

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar emphasized that mere presence of a convicted person in someone’s house does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 216 IPC. The Court observed: "Before alleging any offence punishable under Section 216 of IPC, it is necessary to establish that accused person had knowledge about conviction of the offender and that the petitioner had intentionally and willfully harboured him so as to attract Section 216 of IPC."

The Court examined the call records and found no evidence suggesting that the petitioner was aware of Sharan’s conviction. The Bench noted: "Though learned HCGP would invite my attention to the call records of mobile number of the petitioner, a perusal of the same would indicate that there are no text messages or transcripts which would indicate that the petitioner was aware of the offender’s conviction and that he intentionally harboured the convicted person and in the absence of the same, the said contention of learned HCGP cannot be accepted."

The Court further highlighted that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained merely based on assumptions, stating: "In the instant case, apart from the fact that the aforesaid convicted person Sharan was merely arrested and taken into custody from the house of the petitioner, in the absence of any material to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the offender’s conviction and that he intentionally harboured the offender, petitioner cannot be said to be guilty under Section 216 of IPC and consequently, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 216 of IPC would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition."

Quashing of Proceedings

Concluding that the case against the petitioner lacked legal merit, the Court ruled: "The petition is hereby allowed." "The proceedings in C.C.No.1004/2024 on the file of JMFC (VI Court), Mangaluru for the offence punishable under Section 216 of IPC qua the petitioner are hereby quashed." This decision reinforces that for a person to be prosecuted under Section 216 IPC, mere presence of a fugitive in their residence is insufficient; it must be proved that the accused had prior knowledge of the fugitive’s conviction and harboured him with intent.

Cause Title: Sri Udaya Kumar Shetty @ Shanu Shetty Vs State Of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 14164 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

Bench: Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar

[Read/Download order]