Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagath Prakash Nadda vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
WP No. 22933 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22933 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O DR. NARAYAN LAL NADDA
VIJAYPUR VILLAGE, R.O.,
AUHAR, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA
BILASPUR DISTRICT
HIMACHAL PRADESH - 495 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHIGGAON POLICE STATION
Digitally signed HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205
by NAGAVENI
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 005.
2. SRI LAXMAN NANDI
S/O LANKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OFFICE OF
ASSISTANT HORTICULTURE OFFICE
SHIGGAON, HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
WP No. 22933 of 2023
THIS WP 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 IN CRIME NO.51/2023
SHIGGAON POLICE STATION, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND C.J.M,
SHIGGAON, HAVERI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 171F, 171(C) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTION 123(2) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED, HOLDING THAT IT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
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 petitioner is before this Court calling in question
registration of a crime in crime No.51 of 2023 registered for
offences punishable under Section 123(2) of the Representation
of People Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and Sections 171C and
171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).
2. Heard Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner at the relevant point in time was the
National President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and sitting
Member of Parliament from Bilaspur constituency in Himachal
Pradesh. A crime comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent,
a member of Flying Squad Team appointed for the purpose of
parliamentary elections alleging that on 19.04.2023 he found
the petitioner along with others formed a team and while
speaking utters the words which according to the 2nd
respondent/ complainant becomes an offence under Section
123(2) of the Act and Sections 171C and 171F of the IPC. The
registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to
this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the statements that are allegedly
made during a public rally will in no way become the
ingredients of offences that are alleged. The offences that are
alleged are all non-cognizable. On such non-cognizable offence,
the procedure under Section 155(2) of the Cr.PC is not
followed. He would submit that registration of crime be
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
quashed on the aforesaid grounds. He would seek to place
reliance upon an order passed by this Court on identical
offences in Jagath Prakash Nadda Vs. State of Karnataka
and another - Criminal Petition No.5488 of 2023 decided on
7th August 2023.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend
that the petitioner has in fact indulged in what can be called as
ingredients of the offences so alleged. Therefore, investigation
in the least should be permitted to be continued in the case at
hand. It is always open for the petitioner to avail of the
remedies available to him in law.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. On
01.05.2023, a complaint comes to be registered not of an
incident that has happened on the previous day, but the
incident that has happened 12days ago. The allegation is that
the petitioner while speaking has uttered the following words:
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
"Karnataka me vikaski ganga behetihai, iseeliye,
meikamalkenishana par vote mangneaaya hum,
Karnataka me vikasjarirahe, nirantharchaltarahe,
yehchunaav ka mudhahai, jo Pradaan Mantri Narendra
Modi ka ashirvaadhai, us se kahe Karnataka vanchitna
ho jaye, isiliye, meraaapsenivedanhaikiaapkokamal ko
jithanahai, aur Karnataka kevikas ko aagebadanahai"
What the petitioner has uttered is that there is immense
growth and development in Karnataka. He has come here to
request the people of Karnataka to vote for Lotus symbol for
the unrelenting development to continue. On the statement so
made whether it would become the ingredients of the offences
alleged is necessary to be noticed. Section 171C and F of the
IPC that are invoked read as follows:
"171-C. Undue influence at elections.--(1)
Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere
with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the
offence of undue influence at an election.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of sub-section (1), whoever--
(a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in
whom a candidate or voter is interested, with
injury of any kind, or
(b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter
to believe that he or any person in whom he is
interested will become or will be rendered an object
of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure,
shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the
electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the
meaning of sub-section (1).
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of
public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without
intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be
deemed to be interference within the meaning of this
section.
171-F. Punishment for undue influence or
personation at an election.--Whoever commits the
offence of undue influence or personation at an election
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or
with both."
Section 171F deals with punishment for bribery. It mandates
that if any person uses undue influence at an election is said to
be committing the offence of bribery. Bribery is defined under
Section 171B of the IPC. It 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
(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."
If the statement made by the petitioner is considered on
the touchstone of Section 171B, what would unmistakably
emerge is loosely laying the offence against the petitioner as
the statements would not meet the ingredients of bribery even
to its remotest sense.
8. The other offence that is alleged is under Section 171C
of the IPC. Section 171C also punishes a person indulging in
undue influence. It mandates that whoever voluntarily
interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of
electoral right commits undue influence. What the petitioner
has projected is developments in the State of Karnataka have
been good and to continue the said development, vote for the
lotus symbol. It is ununderstandable as to how this would
amount to undue influence, as is obtaining under sub-section
(1) of Section 171C. Therefore, the offence is deliberately and
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
wantonly laid against the petitioner. None of the IPC offences
are thus allegeable against the petitioner.
9. The other offence is Section 123(2) of the Act. It reads
as follows:
"123. Corrupt practices.--The following
shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the
purposes of this Act:--
... ... ...
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct
or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on
the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any
other person with the consent of the candidate or
his election agent, with the free exercise of any
electoral right:
Provided that--
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of this clause any such person as is
referred to therein who--
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector,
or any person in whom a candidate or
an elector is interested, with injury of
any kind including social ostracism and
excommunication or expulsion from any
caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a
candidate or an elector to believe that
he, or any person in whom he is
interested, will become or will be
rendered an object of divine displeasure
or spiritual censure,
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise
of the electoral right of such candidate or elector
within the meaning of this clause;
(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of
public action, or the mere exercise of a legal
right without intent to interfere with an
electoral right, shall not be deemed to be
interference within the meaning of this
clause."
This again deals with undue influence by direct or indirect
interference on the part of the candidate or the agent. The
reasons rendered for holding the offence under Section 171C to
be loosely laid would subsume the subject crime for offence
punishable under the Act. When the crime itself was not
discernible from the facts obtaining in the case at hand, it
becomes a bounden duty upon the Magistrate, who would grant
permission for registration of crime for non-cognizable offence.
It is time and again indicated that the Magistrate should not
pass orders, which bear no application of mind. The requisition
in the case at hand was sent to the learned Magistrate and the
requisition is answered "permitted". The Magistrates at time
and again are indulging in frolicsome acts of granting
permission without application of mind. If the crime so sought
to be registered did not even meet its ingredients even in the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
remotest sense, blanket permissions that are granted
blindfolded by the learned Magistrates should stop and stop
forthwith, as they unnecessarily contribute docket explosion of
this Court. Therefore, permitting further proceedings against
the petitioner on such reckless registration of crime would by
itself become an abuse of the process of law. Reference being
made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE
OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL - 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
wherein at para 102 it is 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
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
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 non-cognizable 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
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
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."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court lays down 7 postulates of interference at
the stage of registration of crime. The first postulate is that
where the allegations even if they are taken on their face value
they would not make out a case against the accused. The fifth
postulate is that where the allegations in the FIR are so absurd
and inherently improbable, it would be a sufficient ground to
quash the proceedings. The seventh postulate is where a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is
maliciously instituted with a view to spite the accused, such
proceedings should be quashed.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.51 of 2023 of Shiggaon Police
Station and pending before the Principal Civil Judge
(Senior Division) and CJM, Shiggaon, Haveri District
stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT:SS
