- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12135 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SUDHAKAR D. AND MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O DASHARATHAIAH RESIDING AT GOMMATA NILAYA BANGALORE ROAD, GANDHINAGARA CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577522 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYA MUKUNDARAJ L.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI. A RAJU S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER POLICE SUB INSPECTOR WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION KARNATAKA-560051 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THEJESH P., HCGP) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST PETITIONER ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO 33 IN C.C NO 25189/2024 INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WILSON GARDEN POLICE BANGALORE, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE 42ND ADDL CMM COURT (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MP'S/MLA'S TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) BANGALORE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 188 AND 290 OF IPC AND SECTION 103 OF K P ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer: "This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash entire proceedings as against petitioner arraigned as accused no.33 in C.C.No.25189/2024 initiated by the 1st respondent Wilson Garden Police Bangalore, pending before the Hon'ble 42nd Addl CMM Court (Special Court for trial of cases against sitting as well as former MP's/MLA's triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) Bangalore for offences punishable under sec.188 and 290 of IPC and section 103 of K P act and grant relief's to the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 2. The petitioner has been charged with the commission of an offences under Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1961 (for short ‘KP Act’) and Sections 188 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 3. It has been alleged that the petitioner had protested against the policy of the Government outside the designated place, in spite of prohibitory orders in force, and thereby committed the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections. 4. It is further submitted that the main offence being under Section 188 of IPC, the offences under Section 290 of IPC and 103 of KP Act are only consequential offences and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, they can be sustained only if the offence under Section 188 of IPC is proved. 5. It is submitted that an offence committed under Section 188 of IPC can be taken cognizance only when a private complaint is lodged by the Competent Officer as envisaged under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., and the same has not been filed in the instant case. It is further submitted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 that when the offence under Section 188 of IPC itself fails, the offences alleged under other sections also will have to go, given the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also contended that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in identical facts and circumstances of the case, has quashed the entire proceedings against the accused therein. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24699/2024 disposed on 12.09.2024. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition should be allowed. 6. The learned HCGP has not been able to contravene any of the submissions made hereinabove. 7. In WP No. 24699/2024, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been held as under: 4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has quashed the proceedings on identical offences against the other accused, wherein it has held as follows: "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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 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, 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 question 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 Karnataka v. Hemareddy1, 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. 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." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 5. In the light of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and that of this Court and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings pending in C.C.No.25189/2024 and Private Complaint bearing No 9858/2022 dated 22.6.2022 before the 29th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and which was subsequently transferred to 42nd Additional (Spl Court Trial Cases filed against sitting a well as former MP's and MLA, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) stand quashed qua the petitioners. 8. In the light of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 24699/24 and also in the light of the undisputed submissions made by the petitioner as mentioned above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Proceedings pending in C.C. No. 25189/2024 on the file of 42nd Additional C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of IPC - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34985 CRL.P No. 12135 of 2025 and Section 103 of Karnataka Police Act, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned, is set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12