- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6518 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGESH T, S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, ANDRAHALLI, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 058. 2. SRI. KASHIVISHWANATHA M.G, S/O. M.V. GURUMURTHY CHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, 6TH CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 072. 3. SRI. ADIMURTHY, S/O PATALAPPA N, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.44/5, PUTTENAHALLI, YELAHANKA NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 064. 4. SRI. UMESH SHETTY, S/O LATE VITTAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KAMADENU, NO. 1441, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOVINDARAJA NAGAR POLICE STATION, VIJAYNAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 079, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING ANNEX, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND FST TEAM A, GOVINDARAJA NAGAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY WARD NO. 104, 125, 126, 128 AND 131 GOVINDARAJA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.114/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ACMM AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 171-E OF IPC 1860 AND U/S.123(1) OF REPRESENTATIVE OF PEOPLE ACT, 1950, 1951, 1989 ARISING OUT OF FIR DATED 20.03.2024 REGISTERED BY GOVINDARAJA NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:- “ a. Call for records in Crime No.114/2024, pending on the file of the XXIV ACMM at Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 171E of the IPC 1860 and U/s 123(1) of Representation of People Act, 1950, 1951, 1989 arising out of FIR dated 20.03.2024 registered by Govindaraja Nagar P.S., Bangalore. b. Quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.114/2024, pending on the file of the XXIV ACMM at Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 171E of the IPC 1860 and under Section 123(1) of Representation of People Act, 1950, 1951, 1989 arising out of FIR dated 20.03.2024 registered by Govindaraja Nagar P.S., Bangalore. c. Further be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case with costs of these proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent – State and perused the material on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that 2nd respondent filed the instant complaint against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 171-E of IPC read with Section 123(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'RP Act' for short), which are non-cognizable offences. In pursuance of the same, the 1st respondent – Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet and as such, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. It is contended that apart from the fact that necessary ingredients constituting offences punishable under Section 171-E of IPC or Section 123(1) of RP Act had not been made out either in their impugned FIR or charge sheet and the material collected during investigation, the alleged rice bags, which were the subject matter of the proceedings had not been recovered from the petitioners and no action has been taken as against the alleged voters who had alleged to have received the subject rice bags from the petitioners and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4. 4. It is further contended that the petitioners were selling and distributing the subject rice bags to customers who were beneficiaries of a Central Government Scheme at discounted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 prices/rates, which cannot be said to constitute the aforesaid offences. It is also contended that the offences punishable under Section 171-E of IPC and Section 123(1) of RP Act are non cognizable offences and in the absence of valid and proper permission being obtained under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also as held by this Court in the case Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda S., Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., - Crl.P.No.6812/2023 dated 08.09.2023. It is therefore contended that the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners, deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 6. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, Charge sheet, statement of witnesses and documents clearly establish that necessary ingredients constituting offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC or Section 123(1) of RP Act had not been made out by the respondents. Further, the subject - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 rice bags have not been recovered either from the petitioners or from the alleged voters to whom the petitioners are alleged to have given the subject rice bags; in fact, the alleged voters have neither been identified by the respondents who have also not taken any action against them for the alleged offences. So also, the material on record comprising of letter dated 28.02.2024, agreement dated 01.03.2024, GST invoices, receipts etc., will indicate that permission was given by Kendriya Bandar to sell/distribute the subject rice bags to the public at discounted rates, thereby, also indicating that the petitioners were not guilty of the alleged offences. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings for offences punishable under Section 171-E of IPC or Section 123(1) of RP Act, deserve to be quashed. 7. It is also pertinent to note that in Shashikala Krishnegowda’s case supra, this Court has held as under: "Heard the learned counsel Shri Shanthi Bhushan H. appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP Smt. Yashodha K.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 – State. 2. The petitioner is before this Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.7453/2013 registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City in Crime No.100/2013, dated 22.04.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 171B, 171E & 188 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that qua the other accused, this Court has already quashed the proceedings arising out of the very same crime. This Court in the case of Dr. C.N. Ashwathnarayan S/o. T.K. Narayanappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.9407/2017, disposed off on 24th April 2018, wherein it is held as under: “Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7453/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E) and 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by second respondent herein. 2. The gist of prosecution case is; second respondent was on election duty in Malleshwaram Constituency No.157 as MCC Flying Squad– Executive Magistrate and while discharging his duties on 21.04.2014, he received information that accused No.1, who is a yoga guru, had arranged a meeting at Kranthiveera Sangollirayann Park falling within the jurisdiction of Subramanya Nagar - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 Police Station and a meeting was being held under the leadership of said yoga guru and in that meeting, petitioner, who was a candidate at Malleshwaram Vidhana Sabha Constituency along with local Corporator- Smt.Shashikala Krishnegowda was participating in the said meeting held by yoga guru Sri.Subhash and after the meeting, breakfast had been arranged without obtaining permission from the Election Officer and on reaching the venue, he found such meeting being held. Hence, alleging that accused had violated election rules, a complaint came to be lodged, which was registered in Cr.No.100/2013 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E) and 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of same and praying for quashing of said proceedings. 3. Heard Sri.Shanthi Bhushan.H, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent – State. Perused the records. 4. As could be seen from the case records, offences alleged against petitioner are punishable under Sections 171(B) and 171(E), which are cognizable offences and as such, prior to registration of FIR, jurisdictional police ought to have obtained permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, which is conspicuously absent in the instant case. Insofar as, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC, the bar contained in Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would come into play namely, prosecution can be initiated for said offence only by a competent officer by filing a complaint before the Court as otherwise the Court before whom proceedings is continued on the basis of police report, would not be empowered to take cognizance of said offence. 5. In the instant case, prosecution has been initiated for the offence committed under Section 188 of IPC on the basis of a police report and not on the basis of complaint lodged in writing by the competent officer, who is empowered to do so. In that view of the matter, proceedings initiated against petitioner if allowed to be continued and is directed to undergo the ordeal of trial, it would be an abuse of process of law.” 4. Insofar as the other accused is concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings in the case of Subhash Vs. the State of Karanataka and another in Crl.P. No.9234/2017, disposed off on 22nd June 2018, wherein it is held as under: “2. Petitioner is arrayed as accused no.2 in C.C.No.7453/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. CMM Court, Bangalore registered for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E), 188 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of the final report submitted by the 2nd respondent under - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. This Court had an occasion to deal with the same matter so far as accused no.1 is concerned. Ultimately, after a reasoned order, this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused no.1. The same has to be made applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. 4. This Court has categorically observed that under Sections 171B and 171E they are non-cognizable offences and so far as offence under Section 188 IPC the Police have no jurisdiction to investigate in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, considering the said legal lacunae in the case, the Court has quashed the proceedings against accused no.1. Under the above said circumstances, the same order holds good so far as the petitioner is concerned.” 5. In the light of the aforesaid orders answering the issue that is called in question in the case at hand, the further consideration or deeper dwelling in the matter would become unnecessary. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.7453/2013 registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City in Crime No.100/2013, dated 22.04.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 171B, 171E & 188 read with Section 34 of the IPC stand quashed." 8. In the instant case, in the absence of legal, proper and valid permission obtained by the respondents from the learned Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C as held by this Court supra, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.114/2024, pending on the file of the XXIV ACMM at Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 171E of IPC and under Section 123(1) of Representation of People Act, 1950, 1951, 1989 arising out of FIR dated 20.03.2024 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2098 CRL.P No. 6518 of 2024 registered by Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK