- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18172 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMIPATHI S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.235/1, KRISHNA KUTEERA, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAIYAN PALYA,INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038. 2. HARISH @ HARISH GOWDA D/O DODDANNA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.2/1,14TH MAIN, SRI NARSIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE, INDIRANAGAR, H.A.L. II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDEEP C.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDRANAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. HARISH B C S/O UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, POLICE INSPECTOR, INDRANAGAR P.S., BENGALURU – 560 093. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP A/W SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR APPROPRIATE RELIEF/RELIEFS TO QUASH PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 14-07-2021 BEARING P.C.R NO.52585 /2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 51(B) NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005(NDMA ACT-2005) AND 188 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE-1860 IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY PENDING AS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1,2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: “ i. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other order, direction or Appropriate Relief/Relief's to Quash Private Complaint dated: 14-07-2021 bearing P.C.R No.52585 /2021 for the Offences punishable under section 51(B) National Disaster Management Act, 2005(NDMA ACT-2005) and 188 of Indian Penal Code- 1860 in so far as the present Petitioners is concerned, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City pending as - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 against this petitioners who is arrayed as Accused no.1,2 vide Annexure-'A' and; ii. Resultantly Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other order, direction or Appropriate Relief/Relief's to Quash order taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated: 09-02-2022 in relation to proceedings in P.C.R No.52585/2021; dated: 14-07-2021 now numbered as C.C no. 50629/2022 after cognizance being taken by the Learned Magistrate for the under section 51(B) National Disaster Management Act, 2005 (NDMA ACT- 2005) and 188 of Indian Penal Code-1860 in so far as the present Petitioners are concerned, presently pending on the file of the Hon'ble Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City pending as against this petitioners who is arrayed as Accused no.1 & 2 vide Annexure-'B' and; iii. Pass any other order/directions in this case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and Equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. SPP along with learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The issue involved in present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Umesh Shetty vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 No.7228/2023 c/w W.P.No.14239/2023 Dated 27.02.2024, which reads as under: “The fact matrix of both these cases is substantially similar and they arise from the very same complaint as well wherein violation of the provisions of Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been alleged. Cognizance having been taken by the learned Judge of the Court below, process has been issued to the accused/petitioners. That is how they are before this court seeking quashment of the same. 2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Aruna Shyam appearing for the petitioners submits that the cognizance of the offence could not have been taken by the court below, the private complaint filed u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the subject offence itself being incompetent. In support of this, he banks upon of a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.13328/2018 (GM-RES) between SRI. RAJASHEKHARANANDA SWAMIJI AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off on 18.6.2021. He further submits that the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having been held mandatory by the Apex Court in SALONI ARORA V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2017) 3 SCC 286, the quashment has to be granted by this court. 3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent opposes the petitions contending that there can be delegation of power to lodge the complaint and therefore, in such an event, the author who promulgated the order in question need not go before the court to complain. Even otherwise, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 according to him, the arguable infirmity not going to root of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as prayed for. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petitions. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioners, broadly agreeing with the submission made on their behalf. Similar uestion had cropped up before the Coordinate Bench in Rajashekharananda Swamiji supra. A paragraphs 8 & 10 of the judgement, it is observed as under: "8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant. 10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld." (Emphasis supplied)" The above observations come to the aid of petitioners. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 5. The vehement submission of learned Addl. SPP that there can be delegation of "power to complain" in terms of promulgated order in question, is bit difficult to countenance in the absence of such delegation being demonstrated from the text of the said order itself. It has been a settled position of law vide In Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 SCC OnLine SC 45 that a delegate cannot further delegate: delegatus non potesta potestas delegare. Contra having not been shown, the contention of the kind cannot be countenanced. In view of the above, these petitions being meritorious are allowed to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the court; the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.24636/2022 pending on the file of learned VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Umesh Shetty’s case supra, the present petition also deserves to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 5. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed in terms of the order passed in Umesh Shetty vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P. No.7228/2023 c/w W.P.No.14239/2023 Dated 27.02.2024. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25277 WP No. 18172 of 2025 (ii) All further proceedings in C.C.No.50629/2022 arising out of P.C.R.No.52585 dated 14.07.2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 51(B) of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 of IPC, pending on the file of X Addl.CMM, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.