- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7373 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. BAISHALI DEY AGED 27 YEARS, L-7 701 PHASE 1, SOWPARNIKA SWASTHIK APT. BIDAR GUPPE, ATTIBELE ROAD, BENGALURU - 562 107. 2. SHASHANK. G S/O GANESH, AGED 24 YEARS, PLOT NO.27 RAMESH NAGAR MAIN ROAD, THIRUMALAI NAGAR, ALWARTHIRUNAGAR, TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU - 600 087. 3. MOHAMMAD KHALIF S/O MOHAMMED SAHAR AGED 27 YEARS, E/175, 4TH CROSS, JYOTHIPURA, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 016 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAHALA NECHIYIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.226/2023 DATED 05/11/023 AND ENTIRE CHARGESHEET IN CC. 7553/2024 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 149, 188, 283, 290, 291 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE ANNX-A AND C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: 1. Quash the FIR in Cr.No.226/2023 dated 05.11.2023 and entire chargesheet in CC No.7553/2024 for offences under Section 149, 188, 283, 290, 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the proceedings against the petitioners pending on the file of the Learned XLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore annexures A & C. 2. Pass such other orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.” 2. Heard Smt. Sahla Nechiyil, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vinay Srinivas and others Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.11802/2025 dated 24.11.2025, wherein it is held as follows: “Petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings against them in Crime No.206/2023 registered at Cubbon Park Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 188, 283, 290, 291 r/w 149 IPC. 2. FIR is registered on a suo moto complaint lodged by the Station House Officer/Police sub-inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru. It is averred in the complaint that on 16.10.2023 at about 5.00 p.m., about 100 – 150 people had assembled in front of Metro Station, M.G.Road, Bengaluru holding different Placards reading “To stand with Palestine is to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 stand with Humanity; we know to well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of Palestine; you don’t need to be Muslim to stand up for GAZA and Palestine, you just need to be human”. It is alleged that they were staging a protest and shouting slogans without obtaining prior permission from the competent Authority. 3. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that as per Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the concerned public servant is required to file a written private complaint, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC and therefore registration of an FIR is impermissible, which vitiates the proceedings. It is further contended that the order allegedly disobeyed was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and hence, the Police sub-inspector, on whose complaint the case is registered, is not the competent Authority. Section 195 Cr.P.C., reads as under: "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); ог (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;" 4. The reading of the above provision makes it clear that for a Court to take cognizance, there must be a written complaint filed by the public servant concerned or by a public servant to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, there is no written complaint and secondly, the prohibitory order was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant. 5. Insofar as the other offences mentioned in the FIR are concerned, it is useful to refer to para Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.13328/2018 disposed on 18.06.2021, which are extracted here under: “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 (1981) 2 SCC 185, 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.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 6. A similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.41465/2017 disposed on 12.07.2022 and similar other decisions. 7. It is also relevant to mention that, as per complaint averments, there were about 100 – 150 people assembled at the spot. It is alleged that without taking any permission from the competent Authority, they had assembled holding candles and protesting, shouting slogans etc. However, only seven accused, have been named in the FIR, against others no case is registered. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.206/2023 pending on the file of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.” 4. In the light of the issue standing answered by the judgment of the coordinate bench, the petition deserves to succeed with the same relief. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23136 WP No. 7373 of 2026 (ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.7553/2024 pending on the file of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 64