- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14804 CRL.P No. 3369 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3369 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ASHOK MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O S MRUTHYUNJAYA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A KANASU, C201, ADITHI ELITE APARTMENT, SY NO.128/21, 22, 23, 24 NEXT TO MAYURI BAR AND RESTAURANT, BHOGANAHALLI, PANATHUR, BENGALURU- 560103. 2. MANOHAR REDDY C/O VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/At 40, 3RD FLOOR, THIMARAYA SWAMY NILAYA, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, OFF SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD HALANAYAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560035. 3. MOHAN DASARI, S/O BHAGAVANTHAPPA DASARI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A G6, VS PARADISE APARTMENT, SUDAAGUNTEPALYA CV RAMAN NAGARA, BENGALURU- 560093. 4. JAGADISH SADAM @ JAGADEESHA V Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14804 CRL.P No. 3369 of 2025 S/O S N VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A NO 355, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU- 560010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBAIR K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDUR P.S REP. BY THE SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRIDHAR. D S/O LATE DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS MCC/ FLYING SQAUD EAST TALUK, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU- 560036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.20353/2023 REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT- BELLANDUR P.S., PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGE SHEET DTD 10.07.2023 IN CC.NO.20353/2023, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 188 OF THE IPC, 1860, U/S 127 OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1950, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14804 CRL.P No. 3369 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused 1,2,3 & 4 have been charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 127 of the Representation of the people Act, 1950 is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that during Covid 19 pandemic in violation of Standard Operating System and also in violation of the Code of Conduct which was in subsistence for ensuing MLC election, the petitioners participated in a possession in public place without permission from the Competant Authority 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Section 188 of IPC states that 88. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.— Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;and if such - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14804 CRL.P No. 3369 of 2025 disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 4. Section As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C, 1973 that deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence, specifies that: 2. “no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 except, on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate”. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and another - vs- Prasad Vassudev & Others, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 1, The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and another -vs- Prasad Vassudev Keni and other reported in (2020) 20 SCC 1 has held as follows: 1. "48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14804 CRL.P No. 3369 of 2025 attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. 6. Therefore, the cognizance of the offences taken for the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. the light of the above, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the law. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20353/2023 on the file of the XLI Additional (41st Addl.) learned Magistrate Court at Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioners, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE hr List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115