- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31887 CRL.P No. 1365 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1365 OF 2024 BETWEEN: KUSUMAVATI S. SHIVALLI W/O LATE SRI. CHANABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A YARAGUPPI VILLAGE KUNDAGOL TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRIVT KARNATAKA - 581 113. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRINATH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNDAGOL POLICE STATION REP. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR BELAVATAGI S/O SHANMUKAPPA AGED NOT KNOWN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL-GAZETTED R/O UPPIN LAYOUT, BAIREDEVARKOPPA HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31887 CRL.P No. 1365 of 2024 KARNATAKA - 580 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.33038/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE 42ND ADDL.C.M.M., BENGLAURU (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MP/MLAs TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA). 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 proceedings in C.C.No.33038/2023 registered for offence punishable under Sections 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Srinath Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31887 CRL.P No. 1365 of 2024 3. The issue revolves around a narrow compass, as the complainant is the flying squad. For an offence to become punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, the complaint ought to be registered by a public servant, who has notified the said government order and the flying squad is not the one, who has done it, as obtaining under Section 188 of the IPC, in the case at hand. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as 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. 4. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31887 CRL.P No. 1365 of 2024 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. 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;" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31887 CRL.P No. 1365 of 2024 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31887 CRL.P No. 1365 of 2024 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." 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.33038/2023 pending on the file of 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27