- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 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. 4706 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRAMOD MADHAWARAJ S/O LATE M MADHAWARAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: FORMER MLA, ADD: MADHWARAJ NEAR CITIZEN CIRLCE, MAPLE, UDUPI, DAKSHINA KANNADA -576108. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALPE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.34/2025 REGISTERED BY THE MALPE P.S., UDUPI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 57,191(1),192 OF BNS, 2023, PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.34 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 57, 191(1) and 192 of the BNS. 2. Heard Sri.Venkatesh Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP for the respondent. 3. A suo motu complaint comes to be registered by the respondent - police on 22.03.2025 against the petitioner, on the score that the petitioner in a protest organized by the Malpe Fisherman's Association made a provocative statement against a lady who was caught committing theft, who was then assaulted by the fishermen for the theft. The petitioner is alleged to have stated that the police took 5 to 6 hours to take action against the lady who committed the theft and that if thieves enter ones house they must be tied up. The petitioner is further alleged to have also stated that, the fisherman only slapped the lady because she committed theft and one must - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 not object to the same. This then becomes a crime in Crime No.34 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences. Challenging the registration of the said crime, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Since the crime has sprung on the score of registration of a suo motu complaint, the complaint is required to be notice. It reads as follows: "ೆ ಾಾ ಾಗಳ ಮೆ ೕ ಾೆ ಾನೇ ಾಂಕ 18.03.2025 ರಂದು ಮೆ ಬಂದನ! ಮ"#ೆಯನು% ಮರ ೆ& ಕ'( )ಾ* ಹೆ! ಾ,ದ ಬೆ- ಾಂಕ 19.03.2025 ರಂದು ಮೆ ೕ ಾೆಯ ಅ.ಕ/ 32/2025 ಕಲಂ 189(2) 191(2) 126(2) 127(2) 74.115(2) 351(2) 1ೊ3ೆೆ 190 4 ಎ6 ಎ )ಾಗು 3(1) ® 3(1)(5) 3(2)(V-A) SC ST Act. ಪ/ಕರಣ 9ಾಖಾ; ತ=>ೆಯ! ಈ ವೆೆ 5 ಜನ ಆೋCತರನು% ದಸE; ಾ, ಾFಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನ ೆ& ಕHಸಾ;9ೆ. ಮುಂನ ನಗಳ! ಈ ಪ/ಕರಣವನು% JಾಂK ಮತುE Lೌ)ಾಧN3ೆOಂದ )ೇೆ =PಾOಸQೇಕು, )ಾಗು ಎಾ! ಸಾಜಗಳನು% ಒಳೊಂಡು Uೕನುಾರೆ ಬಂದನ!ರುವ ಸಮLೆಗಳ ಬೆ- ಚWNಸುವ ಸಲುXಾ; ಮೆ Uೕನುಾರರ ಸಂಘ () )ಾಗು ಇ=%ತರರ ಪ/ಮುಖ Uೕನುಾ ಾ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಪ/Kಭಟಾ ಸPೆಯನು% ಾಂಕ 22.03 2025 ರಂದು ಮೆಯ ಬಂದರು ಪ/9ೇಶದ! ಹU^ ೊಂ,ರು3ಾEೆ. ಈ ಸPೆಯ! ಹಲXಾರು ಗಣರು Pಾಗವ"_ LಾವNಜ=ಕರನು% ಉ9ೆaೕb_ ಾತಾ,ರು3ಾEೆ. ಅ ಸಮಯ LಾವNಜ=ಕರನು% ಉ9ೆaೕb_ ಾತಾ,ದ ಾc ಸWವಾದ b/ೕ ಪ/dೕe ಮಧfಾg ರವರು ನಮ^ ಮೆೆ ಕಳhರು ಬಂದೆ ಾವi ಏನು - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 ಾಡುKEೕk? ೕಸರು ಬರುವiದ ೆ& 5-6 ಗಂlೆ ತಡXಾದೆ ಾವi ಏನು ಾಡು3ೆEೕXೆ? ಕlೆ( )ಾಕೇ Qೇಕು. ಕಳhರನು% ಕ'( )ಾಕೇ Qೇಕು. ಮ3ೆEೕನು ಾಡ ೆ& ಆಗು3ೆE? ಏನು ಅವೆ ಏಟು ಎಂದೆ ಮWmನ! ಖಡ-ದ! ತಲXಾನ! )ೊnೆದ9ಾa? 2 ೆೆ%ೆ Qಾ_ದುa, Fಾೆ? ಕHh ಎಂದು ಮ"#ೆೆ ಅಂತ ಆೋCತ ಒಂದು ವ*Eೆ, ಆ ಮ"#ೆದು ಏಾದರೂ ಆoೇಪ ಉಂlಾ?" LಾವNಜ=ಕXಾ; ಕ'( )ಾ* )ೊnೆದುದaನು% ಸಮಥNೆ ಾ, ೊಳ h3ಾE LಾವNಜ=ಕಂದ ಇಂಥಹ ಅಪಾಧ ಾ,ಸಲು ದುqೆ/ೕರೆ ಾಡು3ಾE, 9ೆrೕಷ PಾವೆOಂದ ಇಷ(ಪtವNಕXಾ; Pಾಷಣ ಾ, 9ೊಂ4ಯ ಅಪಾಧವi ನnೆಯುವ ಸಂಭವ ಇ9ೆ ಎಂದು ೊKEದೂa ಅ!ದaವರನು% ಪ/uೋಸು3ಾE ಉ9ೆ/ೕಕ Pಾಷಣ ಾ,ರು3ಾEೆ. ಈ ಘಟೆ ನnೆ9ಾಗ ಸಮಯ ಮ9ಾಹ% 11:30 ಆ;ರಬಹುದು. ಾರಣ b/ೕ ಪ/dೕe ಮಧfಾg ರವರ kರುದv ಕಲಂ 57 1ೊ3ೆೆ, 191(1), 192, BNS ಅ,ಯ! ದೂರನು% 9ಾಖಸುವಂ3ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂWಸು3ೆEೕೆ." 5. The complaint states that the petitioner must be held liable for the offences punishable under Sections 57, 191(1) and 192 of the BNS. Sections 191(1) and 192 of the BNS read as follows: "191. Rioting.—(1) Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. (2) Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 192. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot-if rioting be committed; if not committed.—Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." (Emphasis supplied) Section 191(1) of the BNS which deals with the offence of rioting stipulates that, where force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of its common object, every member of the assembly is guilty of rioting. Section 192 of the BNS punishes the act of intentional provocation, likely to cause rioting, whether or not a riot actually occurs. 6. The Apex Court in the case of LAKSHMAN SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR1, while interpreting Section 146 of the IPC, which corresponds to Section 191 of the BNS, elucidated the essential ingredients required to establish an offence of rioting and observed as follows: 1 (2021) 9 SCC 191 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 "13. The offence of “rioting” is defined in Section 146 IPC, which reads as under: “146. Rioting.—Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.” 14. On a fair reading of the definition of “rioting” as per Section 146 IPC, for the offence of “rioting”, there has to be, (i) an unlawful assembly of 5 or more persons as defined in Section 141 IPC i.e. an assembly of 5 or more persons and such assembly was unlawful; (ii) the unlawful assembly must use force or violence. Force is defined in Section 349 IPC; and (iii) the force or violence used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof must be in prosecution of the common object of such assembly in which case every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. 15. “Force” is defined under Section 349 IPC. As per Section 349 IPC, “force” means “A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other…”." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court observes that the offence of rioting is made out when an unlawful assembly constituting five or more persons, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 uses force or violence in prosecution of its common object, rendering every member of the assembly liable for the offence. 7. A perusal of the complaint would not indicate any of the ingredients of the offence of rioting, as laid down by the Apex Court, being made out. Therefore, permitting further investigation into the said case would undoubtedly amount to an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. It would become apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2 wherein the Apex Court holds 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 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 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 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. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 (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.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court observes that, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint do not, even prima facie, disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged, then such FIR or complaint ought to be quashed. 8. In the light of the allegations not meeting even an iota of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, permitting further investigation is not warranted in the case at hand and the crime in Crime No. 34 of 2025 deserves to be quashed. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.34 of 2025 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31622 CRL.P No. 4706 of 2025 57, 191(1) and 192 of the BNS qua the petitioner, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6