Karnataka High Court
Ashok Siddalingappa Sayannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16258
CRL.P No. 102397 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102397 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
ASHOK SIDDALINGAPPA SAYANNAVAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAY K NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION
DIST: BELAGAVI
R/BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF
Digitally signed by BNSS), SEEKING TO:
RAKESH S A) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1626
HARIHAR
Location: High (GOKAK TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.125/2008) FOR THE OFFENCE
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, U/S 133 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951
Dharwad
ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) IS
CONCERNED.
B) THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE
NNO.1626/2011 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 133 OF
THE REPRESENTEATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AN
JMFC., GOKAK ONLY INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED
NO.1) IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16258
CRL.P No. 102397 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
Heard Sri. Vijay K. Naik, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, the learned HCGP for
respondent.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1. Qua the other
accused, this Court had quashed the proceedings. The same
reads as follows:
"Heard Shri Vitthal S. Teli, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners. The learned HCGP is
directed to accept notice for the respondent State and is
heard in the matter.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling
in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1626/2011,
pending on the file of Prl. JMFC, Gokak, registered for the
offence punishable under Section 133 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned HCGP would in unison submit
that the issue in the petition stands covered by plethora
of judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this
Court, the latest of which is rendered on 8.9.2021 in
Crl.P.No.100550/2021, which is concerned the very crime
against accused nos.4 and 6, wherein this Court has held
as follows:
5. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C is a mandatory
provision which mandates that, no Police officer shall
investigate a non-cognizable case without an order of a
Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the
case for trial.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16258
HC-KAR
6. On a detailed discussion of the RP Act, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (1996) 11
SCC 557 in the case of Keshv Lal Thakur v. State of
Bihar, has held that.
" Election - Representation of People Act, 195-
S.31- Investigation into, and taking cognizance of
offence under - Legality - Being a non-cognizable
offence, investigation into offence under S.31 without an
order of a competent Magistrate under S.155(2) Cr.P.C.,
held, illegal - Hence, the Magistrate could not take
cognizance thereof upon the report submitted on
completion of such investigation - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Ss.2(c) & (d), 154, 155(2) & 190(1)(a)(b)."
7. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shashil s/o
Gangadhar Namoshi v. The State of Karnataka and
another in Criminal Petition No.200420/2015 has held
that taking cognizance by the Magistrate on the basis of
report submitted by the Police after due investigation
pertaining to non-cognizable offence is bad in law and
the same is liable to be quashed.
8. Learned High Court Government pleader
has contended that the Police have filed requisition
before the jurisdictional Magistrate and obtained
permission to investigate the offence under Section 133
of RP Act.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the said permission obtained by the
Police and granted by the judicial Magistrate is not in
accordance with the Guidelines laid down by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa
Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) v. State of Karnataka
reported in 2020(2) AK 177. The co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, after elaborately considering Section 155(1)
and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka
Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued Guidelines to be
followed by judicial Magistrate. The said guidelines are
as under:
a. 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16258
HC-KAR
b. 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, 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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.
10. In the case on hand, the Police gave
requisition seeking permission to investigate a
noncognizable offence and on the very said requisition,
the judicial Magistrate has endorsed as "permitted". The
learned Magistrate has not followed Guideline No.(b) of
the aforesaid Guidelines. Upon looking to the said
endorsement, there is no application of judicious mind by
the learned Magistrate.
11. In the circumstances, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners herein cannot be
sustained in law. Accordingly, the following order: 6
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16258
HC-KAR
4. In the light of the order passed by the co-
ordinate bench concerning accused nos.4 and 6, the
following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1626/2011,
pending on the file of Prl. JMFC, Gokak, stand
quashed against the petitioners/accused
nos.3 and 7."
3. The learned HCGP would not dispute the position and
accept the fact that qua the other accused, the proceedings are
quashed.
4. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.1626/2011 pending
on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak qua the
petitioner is quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Rsh / CT:ANB
