- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8176 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SHASHIKALA M.G., D/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS FORMER GUEST LECTURER, GOVT. FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, SHIKARIPURA, R/O. MADAPURA VILLAGE, NYAMATI TALUK, DAVAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 225. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HONNALI POLICE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SHASHIDARA C.U., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC.: GOVT. OFFICIAL, NON-GAZETTED ELECTION PLYING SQUAD OFFICER, HONNALI, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 225. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.694/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 171E OF IPC AND U/S 130 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1950 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER. 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 a proceedings in C.C.No.694/2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 171E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and Section 130 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and 1988. 2. Heard Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in a complaint registered on 03.06.2024, which becomes a crime in crime No.141/2024 for the afore-quoted offences against the petitioner and another. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, a member of the flying squad alleges that someone was distributing cash, inducing them to cast votes in favour of one S.P. Dinesh, an independent candidate, and the complainant along with his staff rushed to the spot and found one lady and another person allegedly distributing cash. On enquiry revealed that the names of the said persons were one Shasikala, M.G. and Beeresh. Shasikala/accused No.1, the petitioner is said to be wearing a badge in the name of the candidate S.P. Dinesh and found Rs.30,000/- in her bag, a mobile phone and an election ID card. This led to the registration of the crime, the Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it does not even make an iota of an offence for it to become offence punishable under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 Section 171E of the IPC. Moreover, the offence under Section 171E of the IPC being a non cognizable offence, there is no permission taken from the learned Magistrate prior to registration of the crime. He would on these grounds, seek quashment of the proceedings. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would however refute the submission contending that the petitioner has been found while distributing cash. Therefore, she must come out clean in a full blown trial. She would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A suo motu complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner. The complaint reads as follows: "ೆ, ೕೕ ಇ ೆಕ  ೊಾ ೕ ಾೆ ೊಾ. ಾನೇ, ಷಯ: ಾಂಕ: 3.6.2024 ರಂದು #ಾಲೂ%ಕು ಪಂ'ಾ() ಕ*ೇ+ಯ ಮುಂ-ೆ ತು/0ರಕ1ೆ ರ2ೆ)ಯ ಪಕ3ದ% 4ಾನೂನು5ಾ6ರ7ಾ8 ನೂರು /ೕ ಒಳೆ ಮತ-ಾನ ಾಡಲು ಬರುವವ+ೆ ಹಣವನು - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 ಹಂಚುA)ದB ಶDಕEಾ ಾಗೂ GೕೇH ರವರ ರುದB 4ಾನೂನು ಕIಮ ಜರು8ಸುವ ಕು+ತು. --------- ಈ Mೕಲ3ಂಡ ಷಯ4ೆ3 ಸಂಬಂNOದಂ#ೆ ಸಾಯಕ ಚುಾವಾ ಅN4ಾ+ಗಳ ಆ-ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ:ನಂ.ಇಎTಎ . Oಆ/71/2023-24 ಾಂಕ: 02.05.2024 ರಂ#ೆ ೊಾ #ಾಲೂ%Uನ ೈರುತ ಪಧೕಧರ XೇತI ಾಗೂ DYಕರ XೇತIದ ೆ%ಂ(ಂZ 2ಾ [\ (Flying squad) ಾ8 4ಾಯ]^ವ]6ಸುA)ದುB. ಈ ನ 03.06.24 ರಂದು ಸುಮಯ 9-35 ಗಂ1ೆ ಸಮಯದ% #ಾಲೂ%ಕು ಪಂ'ಾ() ಕ*ೇ+ಯ ಮುಂ-ೆ ತು/0ನಕ1ೆ ರ2ೆ)ಯ ಪಕ3ದ% 7ಾ^_ 5ಾZನ% ಹಣವನು ಇಟು 4ೊಂaದುB, ಪXೇತರ ಅಭc] ಎ.d. ೇH ರವರ ಪರ7ಾ8 ಮತಾಕಲು ಒ#ಾ)(O ಉ-ೆBೕಶ ಪfರಕ7ಾ8 ಹಣವನು ಹಂಚುA)-ಾBೆಂದು ೊಾ ಉಪgಾಾN4ಾ+ಗಳh AOದ Mೕೆೆ ಾವiಗಳh ಸದ+ ಸjಳದ%ದB ಮ6kೆಯನು ಮತು) ಪiರುಷನನು ಚುಾವಾ ಕತ]ವದ%ದB ಮ6kಾ ೕೕ ಪ+DೕO-ಾಗ ಸದ+ ಮ6kೆಯ ೆಸರು ಶDಕEಾ G ಗಂಾಧರಪl ಾ-ಾಪiರ ಾIಮ ಾಮA #ಾಲೂ%ಕು ಎಂದು AOದುB ಸದ+ ಮ6kೆಯ 5ಾZನ% ಮತ-ಾರ+ೆ ಹಂಚಲು ಇ+OದB 30,000/- (ಮೂವತು) 2ಾರ ನಗದು ಹಣ) mೕ ಕಂೆ^ಯ n5ೈT 2ಾ0o] ೕ ಾಗೂ ಚುಾವಣ ಐ.a. 4ಾ\] ಾಗೂ ಸದ+ ಮ6kೆೆ ಸಹ4ಾರ 4ೊಡುA)ದB GೕೇH ತಂ-ೆ ಬಸಪl, 29 ವಷ], ಬಸವನಹq ಾಮA #ಾಲೂ%ಕು ಎಂದು AOದುB ಸದ+ಯವರು ಚುಾವೆ ನrೆಯುA)ರು7ಾಗ 4ಾನೂನು 5ಾ6ರ7ಾ8 ಪXೇತರ ಅಭc]ಯ ಪರ7ಾ8 (ಎ. ೇH) ಮತ-ಾರ+ೆ ಮತಾಕಲು ಹಣದ ಆ/ಷ ಒas ಹಣವನು ಹಂಚುA)ದುB ವU)ಯನು ಪ+DೕಸEಾ8 ಆತನ ಬ +ೕಯT/ೕ 2ಾ0o] tೕ ಇದುB ಮತು) ಒಂದು 5ೈu Uೕ ೊಂಚಲು ಇದುB ಮುಂನ ಕIಮ4ಾ38 ಪಂಚರುಗಳ ಸಮYಮ ಪಂಚಾM ಮೂಲಕ ಅಾನತು) ಪrೆO4ೊಂaದುB ಸದ+ಯವರ ರುದB 4ಾನೂನು ಕIಮ ಜರು8ಸಲು 4ೋ+4ೊಳhq#ೆ)ೕೆ. ಇದೊಂೆ ಮೂಲ ಪಂಚಾM, ಅಾನತು) ಪaOದ ನಗದು ಹಣ ಾಗೂ ಇತೆ ಅಾನತು) ಾaದ ವಸು)ಗಳನು ಅv]wಂೆ ಮುಂನ ಕIಮ4ಾ38 ಸ%Oರು#ೆ)ೕೆ. ಸದ+ ಮ6kೆಯು ಮತ4ೇಂದIಂದ 100 /ೕಟ ಒಳೆ ಪXೇತರ ಅಭc]ಯ 5ಾ\x ಧ+O ಮತ-ಾರ+ೆ ಹಣ ಹಂಚು#ಾ) ಮತ ಚEಾಯುಇಸಲು ಒ#ಾ)(O ಚುಾವಾ ^ೕA ಸಂ6A ಉಲ%ಂyOರು#ಾ)ೆ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 ವಂದೆಗkೆzಂೆ, ತಮ0{ಾ|O ಸ6 ಶDಧ O.ಯು. (Flying Syhad Team) ೈರುತ ಪಧೕದರ ಾಗೂ DYಕರ XೇತI ೊಾ #ಾ: -ಾವಣೆೆ v: ಹು-ೆB:ಕೃ• ಅN4ಾ+ ೈತ ಸಂಪಕ] 4ೇಂದI, 2ಾO ಹq-1 ೊಾ #ಾಲೂ%ಕು. ಾಂಕ: 3.06.2024 ರಂದು ಮ€ಾಹ 12-00 ಗಂ1ೆೆ ಾೆಯ%ದB dgÁåದು-ಾರರು ^ೕaದ dgÁåದು ಾಗೂ ಅಾನತು) ಪಂಚಾM, ಅಾನತು)ಪaOದ ವಸು)ಗಳನು ಾಜರುಪaOದುB O|ೕಕ+O4ೊಂಡು ಾಾ 4ೆ•ಂ ನಂ: 141/2014 ಕಲಂ, 171 (ಇ) ಐ d O 130 ಆ.d.ಆu 1951 +ೕ#ಾ ಪIಕರಣ -ಾಖOರು#ೆ)ೕೆ. ಸ6/ ೕ ಉಪ ^+ೕYಕರರು ೊಾ ೕ ಾೆ" The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet reads as follows: "17. 4ೇOನ ಸಂƒಪ) 2ಾಾಂಶ ಸಾಯಕ ಚುಾವಾ ಅN4ಾ+ಗಳ ಆ-ೇಶ ಸಂRೆ NO:ELN/CR/71/2023-24 ಾಂಕ-02.05.2024 ರ ಆ-ೇಶದಂ#ೆ ೊಾ #ಾಲೂ%Uನ ೈರುತ ಪಧೕಧರ XೇತI ಮತು) DYಕರ XೇತI4ೆ3 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಂ#ೆ ಾಂಕ-03.06.2024 ರಂದು ೊಾ 1ೌ ನ #ಾಲೂಕು ಪಂ'ಾ() ಕ'ೇ+ಯ 4ೊಠaಯ% ಮತಗ1ೆ ಸಂRೆ- 27 ರ%, ಮತ-ಾನ ನrೆಯುA)-ಾBಗ 4ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ% ಕಂಡ ಆೋdತ+ಬ†ರು ಾಂಕ-03.06.2024 ರಂದು 5ೆೆ, 09.30 ಗಂ1ೆ(ಂದ 09.45 ಗಂ1ೆಯ ಒಳಾ8 4ಾನೂನು 5ಾ6ರ7ಾ8 ಚುಾವಾ ^ೕA ಸಂ6#ೆಯನು ಉಲ%ಂಘೆ ಾa - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 ಮತ-ಾನ ನrೆಯುವ ಮತ4ೇಂದIಂದ 100 /ೕಟ ಒಳೆ ^ಂತು4ೊಂಡು ಚುಾವೆೆ ಪXೇತರ ಅಭc]ˆಾ8 ಸl]OದB ಎ d ೇH ರವರ 5ಾI\x ಅನು ಎ1 ಆೋdಯು ತನ Mೖ MೕEೆ ಧ+O ಎ d ೇH ರವ+ೆ ಮತ ಾಕುವಂ#ೆ ಮತ 4ೇಂದI4ೆ3 ಬರುವ ಮತ-ಾರ+ೆ ಹಣ ಹಂ‰4ೆ ಾa ಲಂಚಗುತನದ ಆೋಪ7ೆಸ8ರುವiದು ತ^Rೆ(ಂದ ಧೃಡಪಟ Mೕೆೆ ಆೋdತರುಗಳ ರುದŠ ಕಲಂ 171(ಇ) ಐdO ಮತು) ಕಲಂ 130 +ೕಪI2ೆಂ1ೆಷ ಆ‹ dಪT ಆu 1951 ರ +ೕ#ಾ ಘನ ಾˆಾಲಯ4ೆ3 -ೋŒಾೋಪಾ ಪ_ ಯನು ಸ%O4ೊಂaರುತ)-ೆ." The issue now would be whether this would make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 171E of the IPC or Section 130 of the Representation of People Act. 7. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. Considering the very same offences, this Court in Crl.P.No.4135/2023 disposed on 10.01.2025 has held as follows: "3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The 1st respondent around 2.30 p.m. conducts a search in the house of the petitioner. At about 6.30 p.m. the 2nd respondent/ Member of Flying Squad appointed for the purpose of conduct of searches in connection with the then ensuing Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, registers a complaint against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 171E of the IPC. The 1st respondent itself registers a non-cognizable report and presented the same before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate on presentation of a non-cognizable report, as the offence alleged was under Section 171E of the IPC, permits registration of crime in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.. It then becomes a crime in Crime No.65 of 2023 which is now numbered as Crime No.1125 of 2023 for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 aforesaid offence. The registration of crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Kum. Keerthana Nagaraj would submit that the offence under Section 171E of the IPC is non-cognizable and, therefore, the jurisdictional Police ought to have referred the informant to the Magistrate and jurisdictional police themselves have not sought permission to register the crime. This is the procedural violation that the petitioner projects. She would place reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in B.S. YEDIYURAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – (2020) 4 KCCR 2649. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in VIJESH PILLAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – 2023 SCC OnLine KAR 32 wherein it is held that either the informant or the Station House Officer can seek permission to register the crime and it need not be the informant alone. In that light he would submit that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate at the instance of the 1st respondent cannot be invalidated. He would submit, even on merits of the matter that Section 171E of the IPC is found in the case at hand. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join issue in contending that there are no ingredients of Section 171E of the IPC found in the case at hand. Therefore, even on merits of the matter, the learned counsel would seek quashment of proceedings. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The search that is conducted in the house of the petitioner leads to registration of a complaint. The complaint reads as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 “gÀªÀjUÉ ಆರYಕ ^+ೕYಕರು ಮEೆ%ೕಶ|ರಂ ೕ ಾೆ 5ೆಂಗಳzರು ಾನೇ, ಷಯ: ಾಂNನಗರ €ಾನ ಸgಾ XೇತIದ GŽೆd ಪYದ ಸಂಭವ^ೕಯ ಅಭc] DIೕ ಕೃಷ•ಯ {ೆ_ ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮEೆ%ೕಶ|ರಂ ಮೆಯ% ಮತ-ಾರ+ೆ ಹಂ‰4ೆ ಾa ಮತಗಳ ಆ/ಷmಡsಲು ಸಂಗI6OದB ನO -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳ ಕು+ತು ದೂರು -ಾಖO 4ಾನೂನು ಕIಮವ6ಸುವ ಬೆ•. ಉEೆ%ೕಖ: ಾಂಕ: 01-04-2023 ರಂದು ಸದ+ ಸjಳ4ೆ3 gೇ_ ^ೕa ನO -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳನು ಪ+DೕOರುವ Mೕೆೆ. **** Mೕಲ3ಂಡ ಷಯ4ೆ3 ಸಂಬಂNOದಂ#ೆ, 2023 ಕಾ]ಟಕ €ಾನಸgಾ ಚುಾವೆಗಳನು ನrೆಸುA)ರುವ ಅಂಗ7ಾ8 ನಂ.157, ಮEೆ%ೕಶ|ರಂ €ಾನಸgಾ XೇತIದ% ಸಂಭಸಬಹು-ಾದ ಚುಾವೆ ^ೕA ಸಂ6#ೆಗಳನು ಉಲ%ಂಘೆˆಾಗದಂ#ೆ ಚುಾವೆ ನrೆಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಮುಖ ಚುಾವಾN4ಾ+ಯವ+ಂದ ರ‰ತ7ಾ8ರುವ Model code of Conduct (MCC) 4ಾಯ]4ೆ3 ೋಡT ಅN4ಾ+ಗಳ ೇತೃತ|ದ% 4ಾಯ] ^ವ]6ಸುA)ರುವiದು ಸ+ಯŒೆ ಾಂNನಗರ €ಾನ ಸgಾ XೇತIದ GŽೆd ಪYದ ಸಂಭವ^ೕಯ ಅಭc]ˆಾದ DIೕ ಕೃಷ•ಯ {ೆ_ ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮೆಯ% ಮತ-ಾರ+ಂದ ಮತಗಳನು ಗಸಲು ಆ/ಷmಡsಲು ಅಕIಮ7ಾ8 ನO -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳನು ಸಂಗI6Oರುವ ಬೆ• ಾನ ೊrೆT ಅN4ಾ+ಗೆ ಬಲ% ಮೂಲಗಂದ ದೂರು ಬಂದ 6ೆEೆಯ% ಾನ ೋಡT ಅN4ಾ+ಗಳh ಕತ]ವದ%ದB FST -05 ತಂಡ4ೆ3 ^ೕaದ ಆ-ೇಶದಂ#ೆ ೋrೆT ಅN4ಾ+ಗಳ ೇತೃತ|ದ% ಮEೆ%ೕಶ|ರಂ ೕ ಾೆಯ ಇ ೆಕ  ರವೊಂೆ ಜಂ_ˆಾ8 ಉEೆ%ೕಖದ ಾಂಕದಂದು ಮEೆ%ೕಶ|ರಂ, 10 ೇ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 Mೖ , 17 ೇ 4ಾIನ%ರುವ ಮೆ ನಂ: 50 ರ ಮೆಯ% ಖುದುB ಪ+DೕಸEಾ(ತು. ಸjಳದ% ಲXಾಂತರ ರೂಾ( 5ೆEೆ 5ಾಳhವ ನO -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳನು ಸಂಗI6Oರುವiದು ಕಂಡುಬಂರುತ)-ೆ. -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳನು ಸಂಗI6Oರುವiದ4ೆ3 ಅನುಮA/ರOೕ/ಇ#ಾ -ಾಖEಾAಗಳನು 4ೇ-ಾಗ ಸಂಗIಹ-ಾರರು/ಅವರ ಕrೆಯವರು ˆಾವi-ೇ -ಾಖEೆಗಳನು ೋrೆT ಅN4ಾ+ಗೆ ಾಜರುಪaOರುವiಲ%. ಮತ-ಾರರ ಮತಗಳನು 2ೆkೆಯುವ ಉ-ೆBೕಶಂದ Mೕಲ3ಂಡ ನO -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳನು ಅಕIಮ7ಾ8 ಸಂಗI6Oರುವiದು ಪIŽಾ ಪIA^N 4ಾ™B ಮತು) ಐdO ಕಲಂಗಳನು ಉಲ%ಂyOದಂ#ಾ8ರುವiದ+ಂದ ಈ -ಾ2ಾ)ನುಗಳನು ಸಂಗI6Oರುವವರ ರುದŠ ಪIŽಾ ಪIA^N 4ಾ™B ಾಗೂ ಐ.d.O. 4ಾ™B ಪI4ಾರ 4ಾನೂನು ಕIಮವ6ಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ 4ೋ+-ೆ ¸À»/- [DIೕ O  ಲY›ಣಪl] FST-05 vÀAqÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ಅœಯಂತರರು, GGಎಂd, ಾಡ] ನಂ: 76, ಾ(AI ನಗರ,” The crux of the complaint is that in the house of the petitioner, he had stored illegal ration worth several lakhs of rupees, for which the petitioner failed to produce any documents. It is alleged that the grains was stored for distribution during the elections, to woo the voters. Based upon the said complaint, permission is sought from the hands of the learned Magistrate. Permission is granted for registration of crime. 9. The issue whether the informant has to go to the learned Magistrate to seek permission or the Station House Officer need not be gone into, as in the opinion of the Court, the offence under Section 171E is not even attracted in the case at hand. Section 171E of the IPC reads as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 “171-E. Punishment for bribery.— Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only. Explanation.—“Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.” For an offence to become punishable under Section 171E of the IPC which is the punishment for bribery, the ingredients as necessary under Section 171B are required to be present. Section 171B of the IPC reads as follows: “171-B. Bribery.—(1) Whoever— (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.” Section 171B mandates that any person who gives gratification to any person with an object of inducing any other person to exercise electoral right or any person accepts either for himself or for other person any gratification is said to be committing the offence of bribe. 10. What is found in the case at hand is not distribution of ration by the petitioner but stock of ration. This, unless the petitioner is caught distributing or anybody else receiving such distribution of ration, would not attract the ingredients of Section 171B of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 171E of the IPC. 11. This Court in the case of SHRI YUVARAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA1, held as follows: “…. …. …. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1560/2024, disposed of on 05.04.2024, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows: “2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the proceedings are liable to be voided because: i) What all has been alleged in the FIR/Charge Sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and the ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking; therefore, the matter would fit into one of the postulates in STATE OF HARYANA vs CHOWDHARY BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604 which has been reiterated in M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. 1 Crl.P.No.7180 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, 2021 SCC OnLine 315. ii) The order of the learned Magistrate which grants permission which occurs at page No.33 of the PETITION is as cryptic as can be and further it does not disclose any application of mind nor it is reasoned. 3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the Respondent – State vehemently opposes the Petition contending that by looking to the entire material of charge Sheet filed by the police after investigation, it cannot be said that the proceedings are unsustainable. If petitioner faces the trial, no prejudice would be caused to her and that the same would do justice to herself and to the public interest. Even otherwise, petitioner can tap the provisions for discharge or the like, at the hands of learned Magistrate himself, instead of pressing this petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Chapter IXA came to be added to the statute book namely IPC, 1860 by way of amendment, with intent to bring purity in election process. It seeks to make punishable under the ordinary penal law, bribery, undue influence & personation, and certain other malpractices at elections not only to the Legislative bodies, but also to membership of public authorities where the law prescribes a method of election. Further, it intends to debar persons guilty of malpractices from holding positions of public responsibility for a specific period. This chapter has to be read along with the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as it contains additional - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 penalties for certain offences, e.g., sections 171E to 171F of this Code. Thus a conviction under section 171E or section 171F of IPC amounts to a disqualification u/s.8 of RP Act, 1951. This chapter comprises of both a dictionary clause and penal provisions. (b) The offence of bribery is defined under Section 171B of IPC as under: “171B. Bribery— (1) Whoever—(i)gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward” This section defines bribery as an electoral offence, primarily as the giving or accepting of a gratification either as a motive or as a reward to any person, either to induce him - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election. In terms of sub- section (2) inter alia it includes offers or agreements to offer and attempt to procure a gratification. “Gratification” is explained in section 161 as not being restricted to only pecuniary things. Section 171-B(1)(i) provides that if gratification is given to any person inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right, it amounts to commission of the offence of bribery. c) In the above backdrop, let me examine the penal provision namely Section 171(E) of IPC which reads as under: “Punishment for bribery.—Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.” In order to fit into the definition of ‘bribery’ the requirement is that there should be a person who gives or at least offers to give any gratification as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right, by another person. Thus, there should be minimum two persons involved in the act, namely one who bribes or offers to bribe and the other who is bribed or offered bribe. (d) Added to the above, it is not the case of respondents that the alleged act has been done by the person concerned for and on behalf of the petitioner herein. To put it succinctly, what emerges from the complaint is that a particular person was carrying the money and that the same has been seized since it was suspected to be used for electoral offences. All that does not amount - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 to the offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, and therefore there is no scope for invoking section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. e) The next allegation in the complaint relates to the offence punishable under section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The same reads as under: “Penalty for illegal hiring or procuring of conveyance at elections.—If any person is guilty of any such corrupt practice as is specified in clause (5) of section 123 at or in connection with an election, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months and with fine.” The above penal provision in turn refers to a corrupt practice as is specified inter alia in clause 5 of section 123 at or in connection with an election. Section 123 deals with certain acts as corrupt practices. Sub-section(5) specifies one of them, with the following text: “(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent] [or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance] of any elector (other than the candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll” Employing the vehicle or vessel as contemplated in the above provision, is a sine qua non for the invocation of section 133. It is nobody’s case that something of the kind exists in the allegations leveled against the person concerned and more particularly, the petitioner herein. In the absence of ingredients as specified in section 123(5),one - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 would be miles away from the precincts of section 133of 1951 Act. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. The proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, now pending in CC No.2990/2023 on the file of learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under sections 120(1) & 133 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set free of the subject case." 4. In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.2990/2023 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court, Nipani, qua the petitioner, stand quashed.” (Emphasis in original) 12. In light of the issue standing covered by the order passed by this Court (supra) and on finding no ingredient of Section 171E of IPC being attracted in the case at hand, the crime registered against the petitioner is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability, leads to its obliteration. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Crime registered in Crime No.1125 of 2023 (Old No.65 of 2023) by the Malleswaram Police Station, Bengaluru and pending - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed." The judgment is followed again in the cases of G. RAGHU ACHAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.10634/2024 disposed on 04.12.2024, has held as follows: 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the law as elucidated in Crl.P.No.1560/2024 disposed on 05.04.2024 by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition, has held as follows: "This Petition seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated vide FIR No.52/2023 registered on 10.05.2023 by Nipani Town Police which has been given CC No. 2990/2023 after taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC 1860 & for the offence punishable under Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the proceedings are liable to be voided because: i) What all has been alleged in the FIR/Charge Sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and the ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking; therefore, the matter would fit into one of the postulates in STATE OF HARYANA vs CHOWDHARY BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604 which has been reiterated in M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, 2021 SCC OnLine 315. ii) The order of the learned Magistrate which grants permission which occurs at page - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 No.33 of the PETITION is as cryptic as can be and further it does not disclose any application of mind nor it is reasoned. 3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the Respondent – State vehemently opposes the Petition contending that by looking to the entire material of charge Sheet filed by the police after investigation, it cannot be said that the proceedings are unsustainable. If petitioner faces the trial, no prejudice would be caused to her and that the same would do justice to herself and to the public interest. Even otherwise, petitioner can tap the provisions for discharge or the like, at the hands of learned Magistrate himself, instead of pressing this petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Chapter IXA came to be added to the statute book namely IPC, 1860 by way of amendment, with intent to bring purity in election process. It seeks to make punishable under the ordinary penal law, bribery, undue influence & personation, and certain other malpractices at elections not only to the Legislative bodies, but also to membership of public authorities where the law prescribes a method of election. Further, it intends to debar persons guilty of malpractices from holding positions of public responsibility for a specific period. This chapter has to be read along with the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as it contains additional penalties for certain offences, e.g., sections 171E to 171F of this Code. Thus a conviction under section 171E or section 171F of IPC amounts to a disqualification u/s.8 of RP Act, 1951. This chapter comprises of both a dictionary clause and penal provisions. (b) The offence of bribery is defined under Section 171B of IPC as under: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 “171B. Bribery— (1) Whoever—(i)gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward”. This section defines bribery as an electoral offence, primarily as the giving or accepting of a gratification either as a motive or as a reward to any person, either to induce him to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election. In terms of sub-section (2) inter alia it includes offers or agreements to offer and attempt to procure a gratification. “Gratification” is explained in section 161 as not being restricted to only pecuniary things. Section 171-B(1)(i) provides that if gratification is given to any person inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right, it amounts to commission of the offence of bribery. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 c) In the above backdrop, let me examine the penal provision namely Section 171(E) of IPC which reads as under: “Punishment for bribery.—Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.” In order to fit into the definition of ‘bribery’ the requirement is that there should be a person who gives or at least offers to give any gratification as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right, by another person. Thus, there should be minimum two persons involved in the act, namely one who bribes or offers to bribe and the other who is bribed or offered bribe. (d) Added to the above, it is not the case of respondents that the alleged act has been done by the person concerned for and on behalf of the petitioner herein. To put it succinctly, what emerges from the complaint is that a particular person was carrying the money and that the same has been seized since it was suspected to be used for electoral offences. All that does not amount to the offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, and therefore there is no scope for invoking section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. e) The next allegation in the complaint relates to the offence punishable under section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The same reads as under: “Penalty for illegal hiring or procuring of conveyance at elections.—If any person is guilty of any such corrupt practice as is specified in clause (5) of section 123 at or in connection with an election, he shall be - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months and with fine.” The above penal provision in turn refers to a corrupt practice as is specified inter alia in clause 5 of section 123 at or in connection with an election. Section 123 deals with certain acts as corrupt practices. Sub-section(5) specifies one of them, with the following text: “(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent] [or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance] of any elector (other than the candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll” Employing the vehicle or vessel as contemplated in the above provision, is a sine qua non for the invocation of section 133. It is nobody’s case that something of the kind exists in the allegations leveled against the person concerned and more particularly, the petitioner herein. In the absence of ingredients as specified in section 123(5), one would be miles away from the precincts of section 133 of 1951 Act. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. The proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, now pending in CC No.2990/2023 on the file of learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under sections 120(1) & 133 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set free of the subject case." 4. In the case at hand as well, the offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 171E of the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 IPC, for which, the ingredients of Section 171B of the IPC is imperative. None of the ingredients that are found in Section 171B of the IPC are found in the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to follow the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.18/2024 pending before the I Additional Civil and JMFC, Chitradurga, qua the petitioner." and in the case of SMT. LAXMI R. HEBBALKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.10211/2023 disposed on 24.11.2023, has held as follows: The petitioner is before this Court calling in question crime No.67/2023 filed by the Marihal Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 171F and 171C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'IPC' for short), Section 7 of the Religious Institutions Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988 and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986. 2. Heard Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DADDALA BASANAGOUDA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA2, this Court has held as follows: 2 Crl.P.No.200862/2022 disposed on 26.07.2022 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 "This petition is filed praying to quash the order of taking cognizance and issue of process dated 19.01.2019 and consequently pending in C.C.No.129/2019 (Yaragera Police Station in Crime No.103/2018) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (for short ‘of the Act’) and under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC’) on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and JMFC-I at Raichur Dist: Raichur. 02. It is alleged that a flying squad member who is also the Assistant Horticulture Officer, in Zilla Panchayat has lodged a complaint before the police stating that though there was a election code of conduct was in force in respect of MLA elections, a meeting was held under the leadership of the petitioner, in the compound infront of Laxmi Venkateshwar Temple. Therefore, there is a violation of election code of conduct. On the basis of said complaint, the police have registered case for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and under Section 188 of IPC and charge- sheet has been filed by the police. 03. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused, which is challenged in this petition. 04. Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 05. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that taking of cognizance on the basis of complaint filed by the police in respect of offence under Section 188 of IPC is illegal, as this is contravention under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The very invoking of Section 7 of the Act was not called for, as bare reading of Section 7 of the Act would clearly discloses that for contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, it is only the manager and every person connected with such religious institution are liable, but not other - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 persons. In this regard he relied upon the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 in the case of Devananda s/o Pulasinga Chowhan and another vs. State of Karnataka and another and Crl.P.No.15853/2013 dated 09.07.2019 in the case of Shivangouda Naik s/o Hanmanthraya vs. The State of Karnataka. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 06. The learned High Court Government argued that the learned Magistrate has taken properly cognizance and issued summons to the accused. 07. I have perused the said judgments. Admittedly, the complaint lodged by the complainant does not disclose that anybody made any request for the voters of persons assembled there to cast their votes in their favour. There is nothing to show that as what is the act of this petitioner in the said meeting stated to have been conducted. There is no whisper as to whether any political activities took place in the said meeting. Even the code of conduct is also not produced and what is the code of conduct is violated is also not mentioned. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 (supra) has discussed the said offence, wherein there was a meeting in a Mahalaxmi Temple and some persons solicited votes from the members who had gathered at the Temple. But here in this case there is no such allegation of soliciting any vote for anybody an on party or making propaganda in respect of any political party. It is relevant to refer Para No.5 of Crl.P.No.2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 in the case of Devananda s/o Pulasinga Chowhan and another vs. State of Karnataka and another which reads as under :- “At the outset it requires to be noticed the very invoking of Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, by prosecution was not called for, - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 inasmuch as bare reading of Section 7 of the Act would clearly disclose that for contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, it is the manager and every person connected with such Religious institution who would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. It is not the case of prosecution that petitioners herein were persons incharge of religious institution or inotherwords connected to religious institution. Hence, continuation of proceedings for the said offence against petitioners would definitely be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Insofar as invoking of Section 171F of IPC against petitioners is concerned, when read with conjunction with allegation made in the complaint, same would disclose that petitioners had not solicited the votes but on the other hand it is alleged that a third party had announced one mike seeking vote on behalf of first petitioner and said person is said to have one Sri. Lakkur Wodeyar, who has not been cited as witness in charge sheet or as an accused. Hence, continuation of proceedings against petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 171F of IPC would not be justifiable and even if prosecution is taken to its logical end it would not end in conviction of the accused and thereby directing the petitioners undergone the ordeal of trial would definitely be abuse of process of law.” 08. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.15853/2013 dated 09.07.2019 in the case of Shivangouda Naik s/o Hanmanthraya vs. The State of Karnataka, discussed the applicability of provisions of Section 188 of IPC at Para No.14 which reads as under:- "14. In the case on hand, the records disclose that on the basis of the complaint - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 filed by the Government official who was present at the polling booth, the respondent police have registered the FIR. But, the same is not in accordance with law. Admittedly, the complainant being a public servant has lodged a complaint before the police instead of filing it before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 130 of Representation of People Act, 1951, as there are no specific allegations about canvassing nearing the polling station. Therefore, initiation of proceedings on the basis of the complaint filed before the police by the election officer is contrary to law and procedure prescribed.” 09. Admittedly, in this case the charge- sheet has been filed by the Yaragera Police Station, which is not permissible in view of Bar under Section 195 (1) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking such cognizance is bad in law. Apart from that absolutely, there is no material to show that there is contravention of Section 7 of the Act, against the petitioner. In view of the decision referred above and material placed before the Court, at this stage there is nothing to show that the said Section is applicable to the petitioner. 10. Therefore, in my considered view, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the settled principles as they disclose that there is nothing to show that any political activities took place in the said meeting or what is the code of conduct which violated neither the enhancement for work nor any soliciting of any votes by any person much less this petitioner. This will cause undue and unnecessary hardship to petitioner. Therefore, continuation of this petition is nothing but causing abuse of process of law. Therefore, directing the petitioner to undergo process by trial and then the Court acquitting him is nothing but causing unnecessary ordeal to the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 petitioner. Keeping in view the settled principles of law regarding the quashing of the proceedings as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 118, if the present petition is considered, in my considered opinion the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following; O R D E R The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.129/2019 (Yaragera Police Station in Crime No.103/2018) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and JMFC-I at Raichur, is hereby quashed. 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." In the light of the issue standing completely answered by the aforesaid said judgments and the ingredient of Section 171E of the IPC not being met even to its remotest sense, permitting further trial would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31291 CRL.P No. 8176 of 2026 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.694/2025 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali, Davangere District stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48