Karnataka High Court
Sri Bheemashankar vs The State on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551
CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200183 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BHEEMASHANKAR
S/O PRAKASH TALAWAR
AGE 24 YEARS
OCC: AUTO DRIVER
2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O DEVINDRAPPA TALWAR
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC: AUTO DRIVER
3. SRI. SUNIL
S/O MOUNESH BADIGER
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA 4. SRI. SIDDU
UDAGI S/O MALLIKARJUN DODDAMANI
Location: HIGH AGE: 20 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O TALWAR ONI JEWARGI
TQ: JEWARGI, DIST:KALABURAGI-585310
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
JEWARGI POLICE STATION,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551
CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026
HC-KAR
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AT KALABURAGI-585102
2. SRI. MALLANNA H. A.S.I.,
JEWARGI POLICE STATION,
JEWARGI, TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI-585310
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ORDER OF REGISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL CASE AND THEREBY ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO
THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.08.2025 BY THE LEARNED
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT JEWARGI IN CRIME
NO.0242/2024 REGISTERED BY THE JEWARGI POLICE
STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 299 R/W 190 BNS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551
CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.360/2025, arising out of Crime No.242/2024, registered by Jewargi Police, for the offences punishable under Section 299 r/w Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS, 2023"), pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Jewargi, Kalaburagi (for brevity, "learned Magistrate").
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent No.2 i.e., ASI of Jewargi Police Station, lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 20.09.2024 on the eve of Lord Ganesha idol immersion procession, he was deputed as a security along with the other Police constables. At that time, the local boys who were involved in the immersion procession raised the slogan as "Jai Sri Rama, Jai Ganesha". Further, at 09:30 p.m. near Mahalakshmi Temple at Jewargi, when the immersion -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR procession is heading towards Tippu Sulthan Chowk, the boys involved in the procession i.e., accused No.1 and petitioner Nos.1 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 5, raised the slogan of "Kshatrapati Shivaji on Horse and Tippu Sultan on my *****". When the elders advised them not to make such slogans, they continued the procession by raising the slogans as "Jai Sri Rama, Jai Ganesha". The said slogans were recorded in the mobile phone and uploaded in the social media. Subsequently, the same was viewed by the ASI/respondent No.2 and accordingly, he lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police against accused No.1 and the petitioners, which registered in Crime No.242/2024 for the aforementioned offence.
3. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against accused No.1 and the petitioners for the aforementioned offence, by arraying the petitioners as accused Nos.2 to 5.
Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR offence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 preferred the present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that the order of taking cognizance is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions under Section 217 of BNSS. According to him, in the absence of prior sanction by the appropriate Government, learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offence. He also submitted that the said aspect is covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sirajuddin vs. The State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P.No.3258/2024 dated 30.01.2026. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the prayer.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and documents available on record.
8. Section 217 of BNSS, reads as under:
" 217. Prosecution for offences against State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of-
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VII or under section 196, section 299 or sub-section (1) of section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence;
or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in section 47 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of-
(a) any offence punishable under section 197 or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
-7-NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR (3) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under sub- section (2) of section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings:Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of section 215 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(4) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (2) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under sub-section (3), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of section 174.
9. On bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that before taking cognizance of the above offence, the learned Magistrate has to obtain sanction under Section 217 of BNSS by the State Government, failure of obtaining such sanction, strikes the root of the cognizance order. This position of law is very much settled by the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sirajuddin (supra) held at paragraph Nos.7.1 to 8 as under:
"7.1. The law, in this regard, is too well settled. The Apex Court in PARVEZ PARWAZ v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
"10. The words "No Court shall take cognizance" employed in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against 'taking of cognizance by the Court'. In other words, it creates no bar against registration of a crime or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as contemplated under Section 173, CrPC [Refer:-- State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728)]."
7.2. A little earlier to the judgment of the Apex Court, a coordinate Bench of this Court in VISHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. The questions that would arise for consideration in this petition are as under:
i. Whether prior sanction is required under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. for carrying out an investigation of an offence against the State and/or for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence?
ii. Whether prior sanction is required before filing of charge sheet before the Magistrate as regards an offence -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR against the State and/or for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence?
iii. Whether once charge sheet has been filed, can the sanction granted be withdrawn by the State Government?
iv. Whether once the charge sheet has been filed after sanction, the State Government can direct the public prosecutor to withdraw the complaint?
v. If there is a valid sanction issued can the petitioners try to take advantage of the so called direction by the State Government to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the complaint vide government order dated 04.11.2015 to seek for discharge from the proceedings?
vi. Whether a complaint for defamation can only be filed by a person defamed or can it also be filed by an institution or a representative of the institution so alleged to be defamed?
vii. Whether Section 153-A of IPC can be invoked only if it resulted in promoting enmity between two separate religions or could it be invoked if it promotes enmity within the same religious group or sect or in general disturb public tranquility?
viii. Whether dissemination of material which is "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest" by way of Compact Disks would attract Section 67 of Information Technology Act?
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR ix. What Order Point No. (i) : Whether prior sanction is required under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. for carrying out an investigation of an offence against the State and/or for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence?
16. Sri. A.P. Hegde, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that even before the investigation is carried out, sanction under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. is required. He contends that the State has to give sanction for the investigation and no investigation can be carried out without sanction. He contends that, in the present case, since the investigation is carried out without a sanction, the investigation can not be looked into and no further proceedings be initiated thereon.
17. Per contra, Smt.Vidyavathi, Learned AAG, and Sri. S.M. Chandrashekar, Learned Senior Counsel have contended that at the stage of the investigation, there is no requirement for any sanction and therefore, the investigation can not be faulted with on account of not obtaining of sanction.
18. Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. reads as under:
Section 196: Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A, [ Subs, by Act 63 of 1980, s. 3, for "section 153B, section 295A or section 505" (w.e.f. 23-9-1980).] [section 295A or sub-section (1) of section 505] of the Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108A of the Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
[ Ins. by s. 3, ibid. (w.e.f. 23-9-1980).] [(1 A) No Court shall take cognizance of
(a) any offence punishable under section 153B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.] (2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B of the Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit [Subs, by Act 45 of 1978, s. 16, for "a cognizable offence" (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).] [an offence] punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings:
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR [Subs, by Act 63 of 1980, s. 3, for "under subsection" (1) (w.e.f. 23-9-1980).] [under subsection (1) or sub-section (1 A)] and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under sub-section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of section
155.
19. Section 196, therefore imposes an embargo which is mandatory in nature, the conditions for taking cognizance of an offence have to be necessarily followed before taking such cognizance. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in VALISIDDAPPA's case, stated supra to contend that even for preliminary investigation sanction is required. That was a case where the order indicated both a direction for preliminary investigation as also sanction for prosecution. Hence, this Court has held that there cannot be simultaneous direction according sanction for prosecution as also for investigation since the question of sanction would arise only on completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer and on availability of relevant material collected during the investigation. This decision relied upon by Mr Hegde, in fact, is contrary to his submissions.
20. This Court in VALISIDDAPPA's case, has categorically held that the question of sanction would arise only after all the materials are placed before the Sanctioning Authority. As a corollary, it is clear that at the investigation stage, there is no sanction which is required and the question of according of sanction would arise only after the investigation is completed.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR
21. This Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Rajashekar, supra has held that the prior sanction of the Government is required before cognizance is taken of any such offence. Section 196 would apply only to a Court and not to the police or any investigating agency. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that no sanction is required for the purpose of carrying out investigation. This is also logically correct in the sense that the sanction contemplated under Section 196 Cr.P.C. is for "prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence".
22. Prosecution for an offence does not commence at the stage of investigation. At the investigation stage, the Investigating Officer is only to ascertain the facts of the matter and to prepare investigation report. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has an option either to file a 'B' summary report to state that no offence is committed or to file a charge sheet. If the Investigating Officer is to file a 'B' summary, there would be no prosecution. It is only if a charge sheet is to be filed, then, after filing of the charge sheet, the prosecution would commence. Therefore, at the stage of investigation, it would not be clear as to whether the complaint received would require prosecution or not. It is only if the matter were to proceed towards prosecution, Section 196 of Cr.P.C. would get attracted which contemplates prior sanction by the State for such prosecution.
23. Infact, Section 196(1A) speaks of 'no Court could take cognizance of certain offences except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate as the case may.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR That is to say that prior to cognizance being taken, there is no sanction which is required, more so since Section 196 (1 A) applies only to Courts and Courts taking cognizance. An Investigating Officer conducting an investigation on a complaint being received will not come within the purview of Section 196 (1A). Accordingly, I answer Point No. 1 by holding that no prior sanction is required under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. for carrying out the investigation of an offence by the Investigating Officer, without the intervention of the Court.
Point No. (ii): Whether prior sanction is required before filing of charge sheet before the Magistrate as regards an offence against the State and/or for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence?
24. The word 'cognizance' is derived from Middle English word 'conisance', which in turn is derived from Old French 'conoisance' which in turn is based on Latin word cognoscere which essentially means 'get to know'. The common understanding of the word is "taking notice", legally it can be said to be "takingjudicial notice by a competent jurisdictional Court of law".
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. [AIR 1951 SC 207.], observed that "taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of offence".
26. Though the word cognizance assumes a very important position in the discharge of functions of the Court the same is not statutorily defined.
27. As discussed above no sanction is required prior to or during the course of the investigation, in
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR terms of Section 196(1A) and (2) prior sanction is required at the time of taking cognizance, i.e., at the time when the Court takes notice of the alleged offence committed. This gives rise to the interesting question as to whether sanction is required for purposes of filing a charge sheet of which the Court takes cognizance of subsequently. Cognizance of an offence can only happen after the filing of a charge sheet, needless to say without the filing of a charge sheet; there can be no cognizance taken by the Court. Such a cognizance could be taken immediately after the charge sheet is filed or on a subsequent date, when the charge sheet filed in the office of the Court is placed before the Court. Thus, this would mean that sanction has to be obtained prior to the cognizance being taken.
28. Section 196 however, speaks of prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. Neither Cr.P.C. nor the IPC defines the word "prosecution" so is "commencement of prosecution" not defined. I'm of the considered view that a prosecution commences with the filing of the charge sheet in so far as the State is concerned. It is therefore required that before a charge sheet is filed and prosecution commences, prior sanction of the concerned authority being State Government, Central Government or the District Magistrate be obtained. Trial Court can only take cognizance of an offence if the charge sheet is accompanied by the sanction. Thus, without the sanction order being available before the Court, no cognizance could be taken.
29. However, Section 196 speaks of sanction for prosecution and imposes an embargo on the Court taking cognizance. Prior sanction is required for the purpose of prosecution, the sanction of the prosecution being in the discretion of the concerned authority, even if the investigation report
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR makes out an offence, the concerned authority may decide not to prosecute the matter. Thus, the decision in regard to prosecuting or not is at the sole discretion of the concerned authority. Since the offences are against the State, Investigating Officer has to submit the investigation report to the concerned authority to enable the concerned authority to take a decision on whether to prosecute the matter or not. While doing so, the concerned authority would decide whether to sanction such prosecution or not.
30. If such a sanction is granted, only then, a formal charge sheet would have to be prepared and filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prior sanction of the Government is required before taking cognizance of an offence. The cognizance being taken subsequent to the charge sheet being filed, the charge sheet being the basis for such cognizance, the charge sheet has to be accompanied by such sanction. Thus, I answer Point No. (ii) by holding that at the time of filing of the charge sheet, it is required that the sanction order be filed with the same."
7.3. The High Court of Bombay in KHYYUM v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA has held as follows:
".... .... ....
14. We would also like to deal with the arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant in respect of Section 196 of Cr.P.C. The argument deserves to be rejected outrightly for the simple reason that sanction required under Section 196 of Cr.P.C is a condition precedent to the Court for taking cognizance. It is the Court who takes cognizance of an offence after a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C is filed
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR by the Investigating Officer. It does not fetter police powers to register an F.I.R and investigate. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant for applicability of Section 196 of Cr.P.C is misconceived and untenable in law. Though we must clarify that this argument about absence of sanction does not rendered the F.I.R epso facto illegal. In the present case, this question is merely academic as in our considered view the F.I.R itself fails on its own merits.
Both, the coordinate Bench of this Court and the High Court of Bombay have clearly held that there can be no fetters put on the Police to register a FIR and investigate. Sanction is a condition precedent only when a Court takes cognizance on the final report placed by the investigating agency before the Court. Absence of sanction cannot mean that registration of crime is illegal. The provision is unequivocal.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches bringing in issue of sanction even at the stage of a crime. All those would become inapplicable, as the provision itself does not indicate that prior sanction is required at the stage of registration of a crime. The Apex Court in PARVEZ PARWAZ supra has clearly delineated the said issue in a judgment rendered in the year 2022. Therefore, it is no law that for registration of a crime sanction is required. In the light of the statute and the judicial landscape as considered by the Apex Court, coordinate Bench of this Court and the Bombay High Court, I deem it appropriate to hold that sanction would be required for an offence under Section 295A of the IPC, only at the stage of cognizance and not for registration of a crime
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR or conduct of investigation. Investigation precedes prosecution. At the investigating stage, it is not known whether the material collected would ultimately warrant filing of a charge sheet or closure of proceedings. To insist upon sanction even before investigation, would e to place a cart before the horse and defeat the very object of investigation. I, therefore, hold that prior sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C. is not required for registration of FIR or for conduct of investigation and becomes mandatory only when the Court takes cognizance upon presentation of the final report. In the case at hand, the matter is still at the stage of investigation. The stage of taking of cognizance is yet to arrive. The issue is answered accordingly."
10. Applying the above provisions of law and the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered view, the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance of offence and the same is bad in law and the proceedings cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1551 CRL.P No. 200183 of 2026 HC-KAR C.C.No.360/2025, arising out of Crime No.242/2024, registered by Jewargi Police, for the offences punishable under Section 299 r/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Jewargi, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13 CT-BH