Vijay v. State of Karnataka

ORDER

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.2990/2023 pending on the file

of the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court, Nipani,

qua the petitioner, stand quashed."

(Emphasis in original)

¶12In light of the issue standing covered by the order passed by this Court (supra) and on finding no ingredient of Section 171E of IPC being attracted in the case at hand, the crime registered against the petitioner is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability, leads to its obliteration.

¶13For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Crime registered in Crime No.1125 of 2023 (Old No.65 of 2023) by the Malleswaram Police Station, Bengaluru and pending before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed."

The judgment is followed again in the cases of G. RAGHU ACHAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.10634/2024 disposed on 04.12.2024, has held as follows:

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the law as elucidated in Crl.P.No.1560/2024 disposed on 05.04.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition, has held as follows:

"This Petition seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated vide FIR No.52/2023 registered on 10.05.2023 by Nipani Town Police which has been given CC No. 2990/2023 after taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC 1860 & for the offence punishable under Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951.

¶2Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the proceedings are liable to be voided because:

i) What all has been alleged in the FIR/Charge Sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and the ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking; therefore, the matter would fit into one of the postulates in STATE OF HARYANA vs CHOWDHARY BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604 which has been reiterated in M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, 2021 SCC OnLine 315.

ii) The order of the learned Magistrate which grants permission which occurs at page No.33 of the PETITION is as cryptic as can be and further it does not disclose any application of mind nor it is reasoned.

¶3Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the Respondent – State vehemently opposes the Petition contending that by looking to the entire material of charge Sheet filed by the police after investigation, it cannot be said that the proceedings are unsustainable. If petitioner faces the trial, no prejudice would be caused to her and that the same would do justice to herself and to the public interest. Even otherwise, petitioner can tap the provisions for discharge or the like, at the hands of learned Magistrate himself, instead of pressing this petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) Chapter IXA came to be added to the statute book namely IPC, 1860 by way of amendment, with intent to bring purity in election process. It seeks to make punishable under the ordinary penal law, bribery, undue influence & personation, and certain other malpractices at elections not only to the Legislative bodies, but also to membership of public authorities where the law prescribes a method of election. Further, it intends to debar persons guilty of malpractices from holding positions of public responsibility for a specific period. This chapter has to be read along with the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as it contains additional penalties for certain offences, e.g., sections 171E to 171F of this Code. Thus a conviction under section 171E or section 171F of IPC amounts to a disqualification u/s.8 of RP Act, 1951. This chapter comprises of both a dictionary clause and penal provisions.

(b) The offence of bribery is defined under Section 171B of IPC as under:

"171B. Bribery—

(1) Whoever—(i)gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or

(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery:

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.

(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward".

This section defines bribery as an electoral offence, primarily as the giving or accepting of a gratification either as a motive or as a reward to any person, either to induce him to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election. In terms of sub-section (2) inter alia it includes offers or agreements to offer and attempt to procure a gratification. "Gratification" is explained in section 161 as not being restricted to only pecuniary things. Section 171-B(1)(i) provides that if gratification is given to any person inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right, it amounts to commission of the offence of bribery.

c) In the above backdrop, let me examine the penal provision namely Section 171(E) of IPC which reads as under:

"Punishment for bribery.—Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only."

In order to fit into the definition of 'bribery' the requirement is that there should be a person who gives or at least offers to give any gratification as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right, by another person. Thus, there should be minimum two persons involved in the act, namely one who bribes or offers to bribe and the other who is bribed or offered bribe.

(d) Added to the above, it is not the case of respondents that the alleged act has been done by the person concerned for and on behalf of the petitioner herein. To put it succinctly, what emerges from the complaint is that a particular person was carrying the money and that the same has been seized since it was suspected to be used for electoral offences. All that does not amount to the offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, and therefore there is no scope for invoking section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

e) The next allegation in the complaint relates to the offence punishable under section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The same reads as under:

"Penalty for illegal hiring or procuring of conveyance at elections.—If any person is guilty of any such corrupt practice as is specified in clause (5) of section 123 at or in connection with an election, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months and with fine."

The above penal provision in turn refers to a corrupt practice as is specified inter alia in clause 5 of section 123 at or in connection with an election. Section 123 deals with certain acts as corrupt practices. Sub-section(5) specifies one of them, with the following text:

"(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent] [or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance] of any elector (other than the candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll"

Employing the vehicle or vessel as contemplated in the above provision, is a sine qua non for the invocation of section 133. It is nobody's case that something of the kind exists in the allegations leveled against the person concerned and more particularly, the petitioner herein. In the absence of ingredients as specified in section 123(5), one would be miles away from the precincts of section 133 of 1951 Act.

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. The proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, now pending in CC No.2990/2023 on the file of learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under sections 120(1) & of Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set free of the subject case."

¶4In the case at hand as well, the offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 171E of the IPC, for which, the ingredients of Section 171B of the IPC is imperative. None of the ingredients that are found in Section 171B of the IPC are found in the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to follow the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶5For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.18/2024 pending before the I Additional Civil and JMFC, Chitradurga, qua the petitioner."

and in the case of SMT. LAXMI R. HEBBALKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.10211/2023 disposed on

24.11.2023, has held as follows: The petitioner is before this Court calling in question crime No.67/2023 filed by the Marihal Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 171F and 171C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'IPC' for short), Section 7 of the Religious Institutions Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988 and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986.

¶2Heard Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DADDALA BASANAGOUDA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA2, this Court has held as follows:

"This petition is filed praying to quash the order of taking cognizance and issue of process dated 19.01.2019 and consequently pending in C.C.No.129/2019 (Yaragera Police Station in Crime No.103/2018) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (for short 'of the Act') and under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC') on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and JMFC-I at Raichur Dist: Raichur.

¶02It is alleged that a flying squad member who is also the Assistant Horticulture Officer, in Zilla Panchayat has lodged a complaint before the police stating that though there was a election code of conduct was in force in respect of MLA elections, a meeting was held under the leadership of the petitioner, in the compound infront of Laxmi Venkateshwar Temple. Therefore, there is a violation of election code of conduct. On the basis of said complaint, the police have registered case for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and under Section 188 of IPC and charge-sheet has been filed by the police.

¶03The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused, which is challenged in this petition.

2 Crl.P.No.200862/2022 disposed on 26.07.2022

¶04Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶05The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that taking of cognizance on the basis of complaint filed by the police in respect of offence under Section 188 of IPC is illegal, as this is contravention under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The very invoking of Section 7 of the Act was not called for, as bare reading of Section 7 of the Act would clearly discloses that for contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, it is only the manager and every person connected with such religious institution are liable, but not other persons. In this regard he relied upon the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 in the case of Devananda s/o Pulasinga Chowhan and another vs. State of Karnataka and another and Crl.P.No.15853/2013 dated 09.07.2019 in the case of Shivangouda Naik s/o Hanmanthraya vs. The State of Karnataka. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶06The learned High Court Government argued that the learned Magistrate has taken properly cognizance and issued summons to the accused.

¶07I have perused the said judgments. Admittedly, the complaint lodged by the complainant does not disclose that anybody made any request for the voters of persons assembled there to cast their votes in their favour. There is nothing to show that as what is the act of this petitioner in the said meeting stated to have been conducted. There is no whisper as to whether any political activities took place in the said meeting. Even the code of conduct is also not produced and what is the code of conduct is violated is also not mentioned. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 (supra) has discussed the said offence, wherein there was a meeting in a Mahalaxmi Temple and some persons solicited votes from the members who had gathered at the Temple. But here in this case there is no such allegation of soliciting any vote for anybody an on party or making propaganda in respect of any political party. It is relevant to refer Para No.5 of Crl.P.No.2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 in the case of Devananda s/o Pulasinga Chowhan and another vs. State of Karnataka and another which reads as under :-

"At the outset it requires to be noticed the very invoking of Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, by prosecution was not called for, inasmuch as bare reading of Section 7 of the Act would clearly disclose that for contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, it is the manager and every person connected with such Religious institution who would be liable to be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. It is not the case of prosecution that petitioners herein were persons incharge of religious institution or inotherwords connected to religious institution. Hence, continuation of proceedings for the said offence against petitioners would definitely be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Insofar as invoking of Section 171F of IPC against petitioners is concerned, when read with conjunction with allegation made in the complaint, same would disclose that petitioners had not solicited the votes but on the other hand it is alleged that a third party had announced one mike seeking vote on behalf of first petitioner and said person is said to have one Sri. Lakkur Wodeyar, who has not been cited as witness in charge sheet or as an accused. Hence, continuation of proceedings against petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 171F of IPC would not be justifiable and even if prosecution is taken to its logical end it would not end in conviction of the accused and thereby directing the petitioners undergone the ordeal of trial would definitely be abuse of process of law."

¶08Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.15853/2013 dated 09.07.2019 in the case of Shivangouda Naik s/o Hanmanthraya vs. The State of Karnataka, discussed the applicability of provisions of Section 188 of IPC at Para No.14 which reads as under:-

"14. In the case on hand, the records disclose that on the basis of the complaint filed by the Government official who was present at the polling booth, the respondent police have registered the FIR. But, the same is not in accordance with law. Admittedly, the complainant being a public servant has lodged a complaint before the police instead of filing it before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 130 of Representation of People Act, 1951, as there are no specific allegations about canvassing nearing the polling station. Therefore, initiation of proceedings on the basis of the complaint filed before the police by the election officer is contrary to law and procedure prescribed."

¶09Admittedly, in this case the charge-sheet has been filed by the Yaragera Police Station, which is not permissible in view of Bar under Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking such cognizance is bad in law. Apart from that absolutely, there is no material to show that there is contravention of Section 7 of the Act, against the petitioner. In view of the decision referred above and material placed before the Court, at this stage there is nothing to show that the said Section is applicable to the petitioner.

¶10Therefore, in my considered view, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the settled principles as they disclose that there is nothing to show that any political activities took place in the said meeting or what is the code of conduct which violated neither the enhancement for work nor any soliciting of any votes by any person much less this petitioner. This will cause undue and unnecessary hardship to petitioner. Therefore, continuation of this petition is nothing but causing abuse of process of law. Therefore, directing the petitioner to undergo process by trial and then the Court acquitting him is nothing but causing unnecessary ordeal to the petitioner. Keeping in view the settled principles of law regarding the quashing of the proceedings as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 118, if the present petition is considered, in my considered opinion the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following;

O R D E R

The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

The proceedings in C.C.No.129/2019 (Yaragera Police Station in Crime No.103/2018) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and JMFC-I at Raichur, is hereby quashed.

In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms."

In the light of the issue standing completely answered by the aforesaid said judgments and the ingredient of Section 171E of the IPC not being met even to its remotest sense, permitting further trial would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶8For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.694/2025 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali, Davangere District stand quashed."

¶4In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.32783 of 2026 pending before the XLII ACJM, Bangalore, stand quashed, qua the petitioners.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26165 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VIJAY, S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 10/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE- 560026. 2. ARJUN, S/O LATE SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.158, VALMIKI NAGAR, 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS, TOLL GATE, BANGALORE 560026. 3. MURALI, S/O VENKATAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 01, INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, BEHIND SAHAKAR, KOLAR- 563101. 4. SAMRUDDI MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.66 SAI KUTEERA, by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:45249( WP(No.(26165(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010580552026( ( ( DUO,RESIDENCY,,1ST,A,CROSS,,, JAKKUR,PLANTATION,,, BANGALORE-,560064., …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,ANIKETH.K,,ADVOCATE), AND:( ( 1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, BY,STATION,HOUSE,OFFICER,, VEMAGAL,POLICE,STATION,, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563157., REP.,BY,STATE,PUBLIC,PROSECUTOR,, HIGH,COURT,BUILDING,, BENGALURU-560001., , 2., HEAD,CONSTABLE,, POLICE,OFFICER,,, VEMAGAL,POLICE,STATION,, KOLAR,DISTRICT-563,157., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,DEEPTHI,ALVA,,HCGP,FOR,R-1,&,R-2), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARITCLE, 226, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,READ,WITH,SECTION,482,OF,CRPC/, SECTION, 528, OF, BNSS, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ENTIRE, PROCEEDINGS,IN,C.C.,NO.,32783,OF,2026,PENDING,ON,THE, FILE,XLII,ACJM,,BANGALORE,REGISTERED,FOR,THE,OFFENCE, PUNISHABLE,UNDER,SECTION,171(E),AND,171(H),READ,WITH, SECTION,34,OF,IPC,AS,PER,ANNEXURE-A,PURSUANT,TO,THE, REGISTRATION,OF,FIRST,INFORMATION,REPORT,IN,CRIME,NO., 64, OF, 2023, DATED, 20.03.2023, AND, COMPLAINT, DATED, 20.03.2023, AS, PER, ANNEXURES-B, &, C, IN, SO, FAR, AS, THE, PETITIONERS,ARE,CONCERNED,IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE, AND,EQUITY.,, THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ thereby quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 32783 of 2026 pending on the file XLII ACJM, Bangalore registered for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) and 171(H) read with section 34 of IPC as per ANNEXURE-A pursuant to the registration of First Information report in Crime no. 64 of 2023 dated: 20.03.2023 and complaint dated: 20.03.2023 As per Annexure - B & C in so far as the Petitioners are concerned in the interest of Justice and Equity. ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri.Aniketh K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Deepthi Alva, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.8176/2026 disposed on 23.06.2026, wherein it has held as follows: "The petitioner is before the Court calling in question a proceedings in C.C.No.694/2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 171E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Section 130 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and 1988. 2. Heard Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in a complaint registered on 03.06.2024, which becomes a crime in crime No.141/2024 for the afore-quoted offences against the petitioner and another. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, a member of the flying squad alleges that someone was distributing cash, inducing them to cast votes in favour of one S.P. Dinesh, an independent candidate, and