- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12923 WP No. 32862 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 32862 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KUNTARU RAVISH THANTRI @ RAVI THANTRI, S/O LATE SUBARAYA THANTRI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KUTARU HOUSE, ADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA - 671541. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESHKUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE, MANGALORE - 575004. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12923 WP No. 32862 of 2025 No.OE/12/MOEB/2014 DATED 3/4/2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER IN C.C. NO. 4201/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC (II COURT), MANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-E., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order bearing No.OE 12 MOEB 2014 dated 3/4/14 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-C and consequently quash the entire criminal proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.4201/2014 pending on the file of JMFC (II Court), Mangalore as per Annexure-E. b) Pass such order or orders which this Hon'ble High court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard Sri.Dinesh Kumar Rao K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12923 WP No. 32862 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.15663/2019 has quashed the proceedings qua accused No.1, wherein it is held as follows: "The Police after investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offence is not a speaking order as specified under Section 196 of Cr.PC. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction is not sustainable in law. 3. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that after perusing the material placed before him has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submits that the application of mind before passing an order granting sanction is not mandatory when the material placed along with the requisition clearly disclose the commission of offence alleged against the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Section 196 of Cr.PC specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under 153A of Indian Penal Code except with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12923 WP No. 32862 of 2025 previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Perusal of the impugned order granting sanction as specified under Section 196A of Cr.PC indicates that the 2nd respondent without application of mind and without assigning any reason has passed the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. A coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24900/2018 (DD 27.1.2020) has held as follows: "12. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the sanction order of Government dated 21.06.2013, it indicates that it has only referred the sending of material and contents of the complaint. Thereafter, stated that the statement of the witnesses and other things, constitute an offence under Section 196 of the IPC. In order to constitute an offence, there must be a sanction of Central Government or the State Government and without there being any sanction; no Court shall take the cognizance of the offence. No doubt the sanction order has been produced. A fair perusal of the sanction order produced by the prosecution indicates that the requisite materials constitute the alleged offences and are not placed before the sanctioning Authority. The sanction has been accorded only on the basis of the requisition made by the DGP and IGP and the said order does not refer to the facts and statement of the witnesses for having perused the same and without satisfying the sanction order itself has been issued. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the said Section 196 does not say that there must be an application of mind. But when the sanction has to be issued, the object and spirit of the Section if it is taken into - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12923 WP No. 32862 of 2025 consideration, then the frivolous and a false complaint should not be encouraged as it affects the tranquility and the peace of the country in that light, the said provisions has been made. Entire material if it is perused, it indicates that where he has seen the intention of the accused and where he has satisfied and also has not been specifically stated that it is one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence. In the absence of such material, the sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind before issuing the sanction order dated 21.06.2013. Looking from any angle, the materials produced does not constitute an offence so as to proceed against the accused." 6. In view of language contained in Section 196 of Cr.PC which clearly specifies that it is incumbent on the State Government to pass speaking orders clearly recording reasons while justifying permission to prosecute any citizen and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24900/2018, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is one without application of mind and the same requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed: ii) The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.4201/2014 pending on the file of the JMFC (II Court), Mangalore is hereby quashed." The petitioner being the accused No.2 in C.C.No.4201/2014, is entitled to the same relief as accused No.1 and the petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12923 WP No. 32862 of 2025 deserves to succeed for the reasons rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the afore-quoted judgment qua accused No.1. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Writ Petition is allowed. [II] Impugned Order bearing No.OE 12 MOEB 2014, dated 03-04-2014 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-C, is set-aside. [III] Proceedings in C.C.No.4201/2014 pending before the JMFC (II Court), Mangalore, stands quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 209