- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14206 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. M MOHAN KUMAR S/O. MUNI KATAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SUDDAGUNTEPALAYA C.V. RAMANNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 093 2. RAM KUMAR S/O NAGARAJA B. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 27, SUDDAGUNTE PALAYA, CV RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 093 3. NAGARAJAPPA@ NAGARAJ B. S/O. LATE BYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 27 SUDDAGUNTE PALAYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093 4. NAGARAJ PATIL S/O CHANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 NO. 144, 14TH CROSS SUDDAGUNTE PALAYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093 5. CHANDRAPPA S/O. BYARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT SUDDAGUNTE PALAYA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093 6. KIRAN L. S/O. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 27, SUDDAGUNTE PALAYA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093 7. NATESH KUMAR S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT R/AT NO. 27, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRA MOHAN K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 BAIYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION GOPALAN SIGNATURE MALL, OLD MADRAS RD RAHAT BAGH, NAGAVARAPALYA, BENNIGANA HALLI, BENGALURU-560 093 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DHANYA KUMAR H. C. S/O UNKNOWN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT FST-2 TEAM C.V. RAMANAGARA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY BENGALURU CITY - 560 093. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.76177/2024 IN CR.NO.121/2024 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S. 171(c), 188 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF X ADDL. CJM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE AND THEREBY ACCEPTED ALL THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Chandra Mohan K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the following prayers: "a) Call for records in proceedings in C.CNo.76177/2024 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, At Bengaluru; b) Allow this petition and thereby to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.76177/2024 in Cr.121/2024 for offence punishable under section 171(c), 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short), on the file of X Addl. Chief Judicial Maistrate, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore and thereby acquitted all the accused; & c) Grant such other and further relief deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity." 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 M. MOHAN KUMAR & Ors. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER1, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: "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, 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. 1 Crl.P.No.7228/2023 & connected case disposed on 27.02.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9722 CRL.P No. 14206 of 2025 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 the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23