- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:480 CRL.P No. 101435 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101435 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SUBHASH S/O. ANANDA GUNAGI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. MANDRALI KODWAD, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 2. ABHILASH S/O. KISHOR NAIK, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. PANCHARASHIWADA KODIBAG, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 3. KISHAN GHANSHYAM KAMBLE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. PHOTOGRAPHER, R/O. BANDRWADA MAJALI, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 4. ABHISHEK RAMESH HARIKANTRA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. FOREST QUARTERS, KAJUBAG, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 5. ROHAN RAMANATH GIRAF AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. NAVEENBAG DEVABAG, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 6. GURUPRASAD GAJANAN NAIK AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. ICE FACTORY, CHANDIYA, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 7. SHRINIVAS KRISHNA HARIKANTRA AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. NEW KHB COLONY, HABBUWADA, KARWAR, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.15 11:09:21 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:480 CRL.P No. 101435 of 2024 DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 8. SUBHASH SHANKAR NAIK AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. CHURCH ROAD, JADIGADDA, AMDALLI, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 9. SURAJ MADUKAR GAONKAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HONDAGERI KADWAD, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 10. CHANDRAKANTH KOMAT GUNAGI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HONDAGERI, KADWAD, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 11. AJAY PRADEEP JOSHI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. NEAR NAGANATHWADA NANDAGADDA, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. 12. ABHISHEK RAMESH NAIK AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. SAIKATTA KODIBAG, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-580011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 12 IN CC NO.1624/2023 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KARWAR (IN FIR CRIME NO. 60/2023) KARWAR TOWN P.S. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171 H OF IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:480 CRL.P No. 101435 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution is that during the visit of the Hon’ble Prime Minister for campaigning on behalf of a political party, the petitioners, without obtaining necessary permission from the Election Authority, allegedly booked a bus to transport voters to the venue. The petitioners contend that they neither organized the rally nor were responsible for transporting voters to the venue and claim to have been mere passengers in the said vehicle. Hence, the essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 171H of IPC are conspicuously absent. 3. Section 171H is a non-cognizable offence, and as per law, the Magistrate is required to grant permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), with proper reasoning. However, in this case, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. without assigning any reasons, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:480 CRL.P No. 101435 of 2024 Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2708. Paragraph 20 of the judgment mandates that specific reasons must be recorded by the Magistrate when granting such permission. “20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:480 CRL.P No. 101435 of 2024 itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case. iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition. iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence. v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.” 4. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would constitute an abuse of the process of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:480 CRL.P No. 101435 of 2024 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC.No.1624/2023 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karwar (Crime No.60/2023 of Karwar Town Police Station) are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE EM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4