Karnataka High Court
Krishnakumar S/O Venkatesh Mahale vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:481
CRL.P No. 101432 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101432 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAKUMAR S/O.VENKATESH MAHALE,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. MATAKERI, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
2. SANDEEP S/O. BABA PADTI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
BABRUWADA, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
3. NAGARAJ S/O. ASHOK IGAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. NO. 248, KANTRI, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
4. PRAVEEN S/O. BOMMAYYA NAIK,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 130 E, TAKANAKERI, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 5. RAJAT S/O. RAVIKUMAR NAIK,
Date: 2025.01.16
05:30:54 +0530 AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. NO. 19, BELA BANDAR ROAD,
KANASEGADDE, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
6. SUBRAMANYA S/O. VITTAL REVANKAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
R/O. KERIKATTA LAXMESHWAR,
TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
7. NAGESH S/O. DEVIDAS KENI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:481
CRL.P No. 101432 of 2024
R/O. MATAKERI, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
8. MANJUNATH S/O. PRALHAD AGER,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PURALAXMI BEN NO. 1676,
SHEDGERI, TALUKA: ANKOLA,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
9. NAGARAJ S/O. GANESH NAIK,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NO. 106, KERIKATTA LAXMESHWAR,
TALUKA: ANKOLA, DISTRICT: UATTAR KANNADA.
10. SANJAY S/O. MANOHAR NAIK,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SHEETAIKERI BAVEKERI,
TALUKA: ANKOLA, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH ANKOLA POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA-580011.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO 1 TO 9 AND 11 IN CC NO. 73/2024 ON
THE FILE OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANKOLA (IN FIR CRIME
NO.131/2023 OF ANKOLA POLICE STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171 H OF IPC, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT
CHANDANGOUDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:481
CRL.P No. 101432 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are being prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Case of the Prosecution.
3. It is alleged that during a campaign event for a political
party, attended by the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the petitioners,
without obtaining necessary permission from the Election Authority,
booked a bus to transport voters to the venue. The petitioners
contend that they neither organized the rally nor were responsible
for arranging voter transportation; rather, they were mere
passengers in the vehicle. Hence, the essential elements to
establish the commission of an offence under Section 171H of the
IPC are absent.
4. Section 171H of the IPC pertains to illegal payments in
connection with elections. Since this is a non-cognizable offence,
the magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is mandatory before initiating an
investigation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:481
5. In the present case, it is contended that the magistrate
granted permission under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. without
recording reasons, which contravenes the guidelines laid down by
this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of
Karnataka (2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2708).
6. In the above-cited case, this Court emphasized the
necessity of assigning reasons when granting permission under
Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., as reflected in paragraph 20 of the
judgment.
"20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse
on the report whether the same has been received by post or
muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order
the rank and designation of the police officer or the police
officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted.
Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and
(2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka
Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the
following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate
working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter
making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police
requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an
order in the eyes of law and as mandated under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant
to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make
an endorsement on it as to how it was received,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:481
either by post or by Muddam and direct the office
to place it before him with a separate order sheet.
No order should be passed on the requisition
itself. The said order sheet should be continued
for further proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine
whether the SHO of the police station has referred
the informant to him with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the
contents of the requisition with his/her judicious
mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit
case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that
it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject
the prayer made in the requisition. Only after
his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a
ground to permit the police officer to take up the
investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that
effect permitting the police officer to investigate
the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders
permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify
the rank and designation of the Police Officer who
has to investigate the case, who shall be other
than informant or the complainant."
7. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of
the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:481
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings in CC.No.73/2023 on the file of Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Ankola (Crime No.131/2023 of Ankola Police Station)
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
EM
CT:PA
