- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 17039 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.D.GANAPATHY @ SUVIN GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. M C DEVAIAH, 80, AMMATHI VILLAGE AND POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU - 571 211. 2. SRI. RACHAN MEDAPPA @ PANDANDA RACHAN MEDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. SRI. P.S.MEDAPPA, R/AT CHATHARA KERE, CHIKKA PETE, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 3. MOOKONADA POOVAIAH SUBRAMANI @ MOOKANDA SHASHI SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. SRI. M. A. POOVAIAH, R/AT PODAOTE VILLAGE, CHEMBEBELLORE, VIRAJPET - 571 218. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 4. SRI. M. P. KUSHALAPPA @ SUJA KUSHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. M. A. POOVAIAH, R/AT 46, KAMADHENU NILAYA, MEENPET, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 5. SRI. M. M. RAVINDRA @ MACHIMANDA RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. SRI. MEDAPPA M.B, R/AT NO.48, BEKKE SODLUR, VIRAJPET - 571 216. 6. SRI. AJITH KARUMBAIAH K @ KUTTANDA AJITH KARUMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. SRI. K. K. UTHAIAH, R/AT BHAGAVATI ESTATE, PALIBETTA, MEKUR POST, VIRAJPET - 571 215. 7. SMT. SUNITHA T M @ BOPPANDA SAVITHA JUNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, C/O B M SUNIL KUMAR, AMMATHI, HALUGUNDA VILLAGE, HALUGUNDA POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU, KARNATAKA - 571 211. 8. SRI. HITHESH MUTHAPPA T. G @ THATTANDA HITESH MUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 C/O. SRI GANAPATHY T P, R/AT KUKLURU VILLAGE, CHEMBEBELLURU POST, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 9. SRI. M. K. DEVAIAH @ MALLANDA MADHU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. M. M. KARIAPPA, R/AT APPAIAH SWAMY ROAD, OPP. KEERTHY LAYOUT, CHICKPET, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 10. SMT. YAMUNA ACCAMMA M. C @ YAMUNA CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O. SRI. CHENGAPPA M.S, R/AT NITTUR VILLAGE, VIRAJPET - 571 219. 11. KUM. GANAVI B. D @GANAVI DINESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O. DINESH B.S, R/AT NEHARU NAGARA, VIRAJPET - 571 218. 12. N.U.CHALAN KUMAR @CHALAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE S. M. UTTAYYA, BIRUNANI GRAM, VIRAJPET TALUK, PARAKATAGERI, KODAGU - 571 249. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VIRAJPET TOWN PS, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.71/2024 DATED 20.06.2024 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 145, 149, 341 AND 427 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, VIRAJPET AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND B). IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a Crime in Crime No.71/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 149, 341 and 427 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. Heard Sri. M. Arun Shyam, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri Suyog Herele E. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt Waheeda M.M., the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Girish M Anchan and Others -vs-State of Karnataka and another, Crl.P.No.635/2025 disposed of on 8.6.2026, has held as follows: "The petitioners stand at the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.219/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 196(1), 352 and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 2. Heard Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. C.M. Dhananjaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: It is the case of the prosecution that, on 06.09.2024 at about 04.00 p.m., near Syndicate Circle, Manipal, the petitioners had organized an illegal protest on account of withholding of the award for principal of Kundapura School. The assembly is alleged to have led into burning the effigy of the then Chief Minister. On the score that the effigy had been burnt by the people, who were under protest against withholding of the award of principal, a crime in Crime No.219/2024 comes to be filed. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the protest was voluntary all it there was no organized protest for doing any act. The petitioners are not even involved in the protest there is not even a titter of evidence against these petitioners to drive home the allegations that are made against them. 5. Learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 would however, refute the submission to contend that the interim order is granted and the investigation itself is stalled. Therefore, it is a matter of investigation in the least in the teeth of the offences so alleged against the petitioners. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. An event that happens on 06.09.2024, the crowd is said to have gathered voluntarily and the voluntary crowd was protesting against the withholding of the award to the Principal of a particular school at Kundapura. The effigy of the former Chief Minister is said to have been burnt. There is no direct evidence to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 link the said event to the petitioners in the case at hand. Without there being an iota of evidence, permitting further investigation would by itself become an abuse of the process of the law. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL1, wherein it has held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra2. (Emphasis supplied) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30313 WP No. 17039 of 2024 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) Proceedings in Crime No.219/2024 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Udupi stands quashed qua the petitioners." 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by this Court and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.71/2024, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Virajpet, qua petitioner, is quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30