Karnataka High Court
Mr. Arnab Goswami vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
WP No. 34162 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 34162 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. ARNAB GOSWAMI
S/O LATE MR. MANORANJAN GOSWAMI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT
REPUBLIC MEDIA HOUSE
PLOT NO 10A, SECTOR 158
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, NOIDA
UTTAR PRADESH - 201 301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
AND:
Dharwad
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY S.J.PARK POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR. RAVINDRA M. V.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
WP No. 34162 of 2024
CONGRESS BHAVAN NO.14
QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIME NO.
0035/2024 PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE 6TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU; QUASH THE FIR
IN CRIME NO. 0035/2024 ALONG WITH COMPLAINT DTD.
27.03.2024 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
505(2) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 BEFORE S.J. PARK
POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF 6TH ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU VIDE
(ANNX-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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.35/2024, for the offence
punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel for
Sri Anand Muttalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
representing respondent No.1 - State.
3. Sans details, facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is one of the directors of the holding
company of the channel - R. Kannada, which is, ARG Outlier
Media Private Limited. The petitioner owns and operates the
Republic Media Network. The Republic Media Network operates
news channels in English, Hindi, Bangla and Kannada. In
Kannada, it is R.Kannada. The petitioner is the Editor-in-chief
of the Republic Media Network; is said to have more than 20
years of experience in the field of journalism and to be the
most decorated journalist in the field.
4. The second respondent is the complainant, who is said
to be the Member of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress
Committee, representing the Indian National Congress. A
complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner along
with the Executive Editor of the news channel - Republic
Kannada / R.Kannada alleging that a news is reported by the
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
R.Kannada news channel on a video that was circulated
depicting that an ambulance was made to wait in thick traffic
for the reason that the Chief Minister convoy was to pass
through the said road. The road was M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
This according to the news, restricted the movement of the
vehicles including the aforesaid ambulance. Alleging that this
was a false report, to spread negative opinion, during the
elections to the Parliament, a complaint comes to be registered,
which becomes a crime in Crime No.35/2024, for offence
punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC. The registration of
the crime, is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the
subject petition.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner - Sri Aruna
Shyam, would vehemently contend that the petitioner is not
involved in day-to-day functioning or decision making of the
news channel - R.Kannada; nor the petitioner has hosted or
participated in the airing of the news. Therefore, he is
implicated without any rhyme or reason. On the allegations
made in the complaint, the learned counsel would contend that
none of the ingredients as necessary to be met for it to become
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
an offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC is present in the
case at hand. He would therefore, seek quashment of the
proceedings, by placing reliance upon several judgments of the
Apex Court. All of which would bear consideration in the course
of the order.
6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
would seek to contend that the matter is at the stage of
investigation. FIR is now registered for the aforesaid offence, it
may vary at the time of filing of the charge sheet. The
petitioner would be held responsible as being one of the
directors or Editor-in-Chief of the channel. It cannot air false
news. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, they lie in
a narrow compass. An incident of airing of a particular news in
the R.Kannada news channel on 27.03.2024, results in a
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
complaint being registered by the Member of the Karnataka
Pradesh Congress Committee. Since the entire issue has now
triggered from the complaint, it is germane to notice the
complaint. It reads as follows:
"ರ ೕಂದ ಎಂ. . ವ ೕಲರು
¢£ÁAPÀ:27.03.2024
ಾಜ ಾಯ ದ
ಾನೂನು, ಾನವ ಹಕು ಗಳ ಮತು
ಾ!" ಹಕು #ಾಗ, ೆ.%.&.&.
ಇವ()ೆ,
ಆರ+ಕ ,(ೕ+ಕರು
ಎ-. .ೆ /ಾ0 12ೕ- 3ಾ4ೆ,
5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು.
ಾನ ೇ.
ಷಯ: ಾನ ಮುಖ ಮಂ" ಗಳ ರುದ9 ಸುಳ ; ಸು<= >ತ(&ರುವ (ಪ>@0
ಕನAಡದ ಾ2ೕಕ ಾದ ಅನ D )ೋEಾFG Hಾಗೂ ಸಂ/ಾದಕ ,ರಂಜI ರುದ9
ದೂರು.
Kೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂM&ದಂNೆ <Oಾಂಕ 27.03.2024 ರಂದು ಸಂ.ೆ 7:15 ಗಂPೆ)ೆ ಆQ
ಕನAಡ ಸು<= Rಾ!,ಯ2@ ಎಂS ರEೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಾನ ಮುಖ ಮಂ" ಗTಾದ &ದ= ಾಮಯ
ಅವರು ಸಂಚ(ಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ Rಾಹನಗಳ ಸಂWಾರ ತXೆದು ಅಂಬು YೆIZ ಸಂWಾರ ೆ
ಅ[\ಪ[&]ಾ= ೆ ಎಂದು ವ ^ಬ_ರು ಾ[ದ [^ೕ ತುಣುಕನುA ಪ Eಾರ ಾ[ರುNಾ ೆ.
ಾನ ಮುಖ ಮಂ" ಗಳ Kೖಸೂ(ನ2@ದು= 5ೆಂಗಳ6(ನ ಕXೆ)ೆ ಪ bಾಣ ಾಡ<ರುವ
ಸಂದಭ ದ2@ ಪ( ೕಲOೆ ನXೆಸ]ೆ ಚುOಾವ4ೆಯ ಸಂದಭ ದ2@ Eಾವ ಜ,ಕರನುA
ಪ Wೋ<ಸುವ ಸಲುRಾd ತಪef ಾ!" ಪ Eಾರ ಾ[ರುವ ಆQ ಕನAಡ ((ಪ>@0)
Rಾ!,ಯ ಾ2ೕಕ ಅನ D )ೋEಾFG ಮತು ಸಂ/ಾದಕ ,ರಂಜI ರುದ9 ಸೂಕ
ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ೈ)ೊಳ;5ೇ ೆಂದು ಮನ . ದಯ ಟುh ಕಲಂ 505(2), ರ ಅ[ಯ2@ #ಾರ"ೕಯ
ದಂತಸಂ»vÉಯಂNೆ ಕ ಮಜರುdಸ 5ೇ ೆಂದು ೋರುNೇOೆ.
ತಮi jಾF&ಗTಾದ
¸À»/-
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
(ರ ೕಂದ . ಎಂ. )
ಾಯ ದ , ಾನೂನು #ಾಗ, ೆ%&&
ಸkಳ: 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು
¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.03 2024
¸À»/-
(5ಾ5ಾEಾHೇD ಪPೇl, Hೆm )
ಾಯ ದ , ಾನೂನು #ಾಗ ೆ%&&."
(Emphasis added)
The allegation in the complaint is that, on 27.03.2024,
R.Kannada television channel airs a false news that on the
M.G.Road, due to the movement of the Chief Minister and his
convoy, the traffic was blocked. An ambulance was stuck in
the traffic without being able to reach the hospital. This is
alleged to be false as the Chief Minister on the said date was at
Mysore. Therefore, airing false news has become the subject
matter of the complaint and seeks to take action for the offence
punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
8. Though the complaint was registered on 27.03.2024,
the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 41-A of the
Cr.P.C. after about six months, i.e., on 16.11.2024 and was
directed to appear before the S.J.Park Police Station. It is at
that juncture, the petitioner approaches this Court in the
subject petition. The core issue that would be is, whether the
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
offence is met in the case at hand. The offence alleged is the
one made penal under Section 505(2) of the IPC.
9. Section 505(2) of the IPC reads as follows:
"505. Statements conducing to public mischief.
(1) xxx
(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity,
hatred or ill-will between classes.-- Whoever makes,
publishes or circulates any statement or report containing
rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote,
or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 505(2) of the IPC deals with statements creating
or promoting enemity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
Whoever makes statements, publishes or circulates any
statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with
an intent to create or promote or likely to create or promote ill-
will between two different religions, racial, languages or
regional groups.
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
10. What is aired in the case at hand is an alleged false
report, that the convoy of the Chief Minister had to pass and an
ambulance has to wait. Even if it is construed to be true, it is
un-understandable as to how the ingredients of Section 505(2)
is met even to its remotest sense. Therefore, merely because
the petitioner is a renowned name in the fourth estate, he is
without rhyme and reason dragged into the web of crime, only
to project registration of a crime against the petitioner, which
on the face of it, is reckless.
11. At the time of hearing of the petition, to a pointed
query, that 'the Court wants to know what offence the
petitioner has committed', there is no reply. Therefore, he
has done nothing, ostensibly, so as the petitioner has not
committed any offence as observed hereinabove, the petitioner
is dragged in only because he is Arnab Goswami. It is
ununderstandable as to how the petitioner could be dragged
into this. He being the Editor in-Chief or Executive Director of
Republic Media Network, he has neither made a statement nor
aired anything to promote hatred between the classes. It is the
averment that he is not incharge of day-to-day affairs or
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
minute to minute details of what is aired on R.Kannada.
Therfore, it becomes a classic illustration of dragging the
petitioner only to settle other scores. Recklessness pervades
throughout the registration of the complaint.
12. What would amount to an offence under Section
505(2) of the IPC and what would not, need not detain this
Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the Apex Court
in the case of BILAL AHMED KALOO VS. STATE OF ANDRA
PRADESH reported in (1997) 7 SCC 431, interpreting Section
505(2) of the IPC, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
10. Section 153A was amended by the Criminal and
Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1969 - Act No.XXXV of
1996. It consists of three clauses of which clauses (a) and
(b) alone are material now. By the same amending Act
sub-section (2) was added to Section 505 of the Indian
Penal Code. Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 153A and Section
505(2) are extracted below:
"153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.-
(1) Whoever-
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities, and
which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or
(c) * * *
Shall be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
505(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity,
hatred or ill- will between classes.- Whoever makes,
publishes or circulates any statement or report containing
rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote,
or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall
be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both."
The common ingredient in both the offences is
promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religious or racial or linguistic or
regional groups or castes or communities. Section
153A covers a case where a person by "words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations" promotes or attempts to promote
such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of
such feeling should have been done by making and
publishing or circulating any statement or report
containing rumour or alarming news.
11. This Court has held in Balwant Singh and another
vs. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214) that mens rea is a
necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 153A.
Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate for the
offence under Section 505(2) also as could be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
discerned from the words "with intent to create or
promote or which is likely to create or promote" as
used in that sub-section.
12. The main distinction between the two
offences is that publication of the word or
representation is not necessary under the former,
such publication is sine qua non under Section 505.
The words "whoever makes, publishes or
circulates" used in the setting of Section
505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only
as supplementary to each other. If it is construed
disjunctively, any one who makes a statement
falling within the meaning of Section 505 would,
without publication or circulation, be liable to
conviction. But the same is the effect with Section
153A also and then that Section would have been
bad for redundancy. The intention of the legislature
in providing two different sections on the same
subject would have been to cover two different
fields of similar colour. The fact that both sections
were included as a package in the same amending
enactment lends further support to the said
construction.
13. xxx
14. In Sunilakhya Chowdhury vs. H.M. Jadwet
and another (AIR 1968 Calcutta 266) it has been
held that the words "makes or publishes any
imputation" should be interpreted as words
supplementing each other. A maker of imputation
without publication is not liable to be punished
under that section. We are of the view that the
same interpretation is warranted in respect of the
words "makes, publishes or circulates" in Section
505 IPC also.
15. The common feature in both sections being
promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
"between different" religious or racial or language
or regional groups or castes and communities it is
necessary that atleast two such groups or
communities should be involved. Merely inciting the
felling of one community or group without any
reference to any other community or group cannot
attract either of the two sections.
16. The result of the said discussion is that
appellant who has not done anything as against any
religious, racial or linguistic or regional group or
community cannot be held guilty of either the
offence under Section 153A or under Section
505(2) of IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
Later, the Apex Court in the case of MANZAR SAYEED
KHAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2007) 5
SCC 1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
respective contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties. The question to be decided now is whether the
paragraph complained of would attract the penal
consequences envisaged in Section 153-A IPC. Section
153-A IPC was amended by the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). It consists of
three clauses of which clauses (a) and (b) alone are
material for the case on hand, which read as under:
"153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups
on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance
of harmony.--(1) Whoever--
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or
by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or
attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place
of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any
other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb
the public tranquility, or
(c)***
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both."
16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove,
covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or by visible representations or
otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony
or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of
harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. The
gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of
enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The
intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence
is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC
and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence
of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has
to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the
circumstances in which the book was written and
published. The matter complained of within the ambit of
Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely
on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the
charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a
sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process
of inferential reasoning.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
17. In Ramesh v. Union of India [(1988) 1 SCC 668 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] this Court held
that TV serial Tamas did not depict communal tension and
violence and the provisions of Section 153-A IPC would not
apply to it. It was also not prejudicial to the national
integration falling under Section 153-B IPC. Approving the
observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Bhagwati Charan
Shukla v. Provincial Govt. [AIR 1947 Nag 1] the Court
observed that
"the effect of the words must be judged from the
standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and
courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating
minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile
point of view. ... It is the standard of ordinary reasonable
man or as they say in English law 'the man on the top of
a Clapham omnibus'." (Ramesh case [(1988) 1 SCC 668
: 1988 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 1988 SC 775] , SCC p. 676,
para 13)
18. Again in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of
A.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 431 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1094] it is
held that the common feature in both the sections
viz. Sections 153-A and 505(2), being promotion of
feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will "between
different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional
groups or castes and communities, it is necessary
that at least two such groups or communities should
be involved. Further, it was observed that merely
inciting the feeling of one community or group
without any reference to any other community or
group cannot attract either of the two sections.
19. Prof. James W. Laine, the author of the book, has
exercised his reason and his own analytical skills before
choosing any literature which he intends to include in his
book. Even if the appellant Manzar Sayeed Khan, a
constituted attorney of Oxford University Press, India and
the appellant Vinod Hansraj Goyal, proprietor of Rashtriya
Printing Press, Shahdara, Delhi, or the persons whose
names are mentioned in the acknowledgment by the
author, have provided information for the purpose,
including the said paragraph in the book, it is important
and worth observing that the author has mentioned that
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
BORI, Pune has been his scholarly home in India and many
people therein helped him for collecting the material. The
author has given the names of many persons, who had
helped him in one way or the other and enlightened him
about the history of the historical hero "Shivaji". The
author has also mentioned in the book about the
International Conference on Maharashtra, etc. which has
given him a lot of material for inclusion in his book. As it
appears from the records, BORI, Pune was established
almost 90 years back and it has a great tradition of
scholarly work. It is very improbable to imagine that any
serious and intense scholar will attempt to malign the
image of this glorious institute. The author thought his
work to be worthy of dedication to his mother, Marie
Whitwell Laine, which was purely a scholarly pursuit and
without any intention or motive to involve himself in
trouble. It is the sole responsibility of the State to make
positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between
any of the communities, castes or religions within the
State and try every possible way to establish peace and
harmony within the State under every and all
circumstances.
20. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] this
Court has observed that an FIR can be quashed if it does
not disclose an offence and there is no need for any
investigation or recording of any statement."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the ingredients of the offence under Section
505(2) of the IPC is not been met, even to the remotest sense,
in the case at hand, and also the interpretation of the Apex
Court on Section 505(2) of the IPC, in the afore-quoted
judgment, permitting investigation even against the petitioner
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
would result in gross abuse of the process of the law by the
prosecution, and would undoubtedly result in patent injustice.
13. The submission of the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor that the complaint is only registered and the charge
sheet may vary the offence, is noted only to be rejected. To
permit investigation, there should be substance in the
complaint. Except malafides, there is no substance in the
complaint. It is in such cases, the Apex Court permits
obliteration of the investigation even when it is, in the crime
stage itself.
14. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court rendered in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V.
BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, 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
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
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 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,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
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)
In the light of the preceding analysis and also the
judgments of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, permitting
investigation even, in the case at hand would become an abuse
of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, it deem it appropriate obliterate the damocles
sword hanging on the head of the petitioner of a irresponsible
crime registered against him.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6555
b. The impugned crime in Crime No.35/2024, pending
before the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stands obliterated.
_________SD/-________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
NVJ
CT:SS
