- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2024 BETWEEN: CHIKKANGOUDAR S.I AGE: 62 YEARS OCC: POLITICIAN R/O: ADARAGUNCHI VILLAGE TQ: HUBBALLI DISTRICT DHARWAD PIN: 580028 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANAND BEERANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUNDAGOL P S SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SANJEVKUMAR S/O SHANMUKAPPA BELAVATGI AGE:53 YEARS OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE R/O.: UPPINLEOUT BAIRDEVARAKOPPA HUBBALLI DIST.: DHARWAD – 580 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.73/2023 ARISING OUT OF KUNDAGOL P.S. IN CR.NO.55/2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 188 OF IPC AND SEC.79 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE DHARWAD IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.73 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’ for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Anand Beerannavar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for 1st respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: On an incident that takes place on 20-04-2023, a complaint comes to be registered before the 1st respondent police by the 2nd respondent/complainant, alleging that the petitioner has indulged in usage of service of children for the purpose of elections, which would become violation under Section 79 of the JJ Act. Apart from the said offence under the JJ Act, the offence under Section 188 of the IPC is also alleged, for the reason that the petitioner has violated the orders of the Authority who had promulgated certain orders. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis is answered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13328/2018 disposed on 18-06-2021, which submission is accepted by the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent-State. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 5. In the light of there being no dispute with regard to the fact that the issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I deem it appropriate to close the proceedings by following the judgment so rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The co- ordinate Bench has held as follows: "4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The Commissioner of Police, Mangalore City promulgated the prohibitory order from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. of 08.12.2014 and prohibited assembling of five or more persons in Mangalore city. The accused persons violating such prohibitory order organized procession consisting 2000 persons belonging to Hindu Organization. When the complainant and his colleagues tried to prevent the accused from proceeding with the procession advising that, that is likely to create communal tensions, the accused obstructed the police from discharging their duties, crashed the barricades erected at the scene of offence, damaged the police vehicles and caused injuries to CWS.5 to 8. 5. On receipt of charge sheet, the Magistrate by order dated 24.10.2016 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153, 188, 332, 353 of IPC and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the KPDLP Act and summoned the accused to face trial for the said offences. 6. The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to Annexures-D on the ground that the prime offence was under Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, therefore the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;" 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. 9. Further Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 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, 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) 11. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld. Therefore the entire complaint, first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance are liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No.3660/2016 are hereby quashed." 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30424 CRL.P No. 3629 of 2024 (ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.73 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1