Karnataka High Court
K Sachin vs The State Of Karnataka By on 21 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3310
CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2509 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4844 OF 2024
IN CRL.P No. 2509/2024
BETWEEN:
SUJATHA N.,
D/O NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE WIFE
R/AT SHIGEVADI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPETE TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 576 222.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI (BY SRI DINESHKUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)
J KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BEGUR POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 109
(REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3310
CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. GOVINDHA NAYAKA
S/O MAHADEVANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: FARMER
R/AT SHIGEVADI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 576 222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.42/2024 IN CR.NO.234/2022, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
GUNDLUPET, CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
295A, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P NO. 4844/2024
BETWEEN:
K.SACHIN
S/O KUMARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT HOSA KANNAMBADI VILLAGE
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 434.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ESHWARA H. H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BEGUR POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 109
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3310
CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024
HC-KAR
(REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. GOVINDHA NAYAKA
S/O MAHADEVA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: FARMER
R/AT SHIGEVADI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 576 222.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.42/2024 IN CR.NO.234/2022,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT, GUDLUPET, CHARGE SHEETED FOR OFFENCED
P/U/S 295A, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner - accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.2509/2024 and petitioner - accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4844/2024 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.42/2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR Gudlupet, for the offences under Section 295A, 504, 506 r/w.
34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Dineshkumar K. Rao, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.2509/2024 and Sri Eshwara H.H., learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.4844/2024, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Ganapathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
A complaint comes to be registered on 27.12.2022 alleging that petitioners have destroyed the pillars of a temple or a crack is seen in the pillar of a temple. The complainant is said to be a passerby or resident of the village, registers a complaint against petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, who is the JCB driver. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.234 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 295A r/w. 34 of the IPC. The police after investigation file their charge sheet. On the charge sheet, cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences. Taking of -5- NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR cognizance against the petitioners, has driven them to this Court in the subject petitions.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that for an offence under Section 295A of the IPC, sanction as necessary under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. is imperative, without which, the concerned Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence and therefore, would submit that the proceedings be quashed. Apart from that, the order of taking cognizance does not even bear even a semblance of application of mind.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 -
complainant would vehemently refute the submissions, in contending that it is a matter of trial and the plea of sanction can be projected before the concerned Court at any point in time. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petitions.
6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would admit the fact that sanction is obtained under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., but not from the competent authority. Therefore, liberty should be reserved to obtain sanction from the hands of the competent authority to continue the proceedings.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR
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 all a matter of record.
The registration of the complaint triggers registration of the crime. I therefore deem it appropriate to notice the complaint.
The complaint reads as follows:
" ೆ, ಆರ ಕ ಉಪ ೕ ಕರು ೇಗೂರು ೕ ಾ ೆ, ೇಗೂರು.
ಇಂದ, ೋ ಂದ ಾಯಕ ಮ!ೆ"ೇವ ಾಯಕ $ೕ ೇ%ಾ&, ವಯಸು( 41, ಾಯಕ, )ಂದೂ.
* ನಂ. 95911337340.
-ಾನ./ೇ, ಷಯ: 1ಾ23ಕ 4ಾವ ೆಗ5 ೆ ಧ7ೆ8 ಉಂಟು -ಾ&ರುವ:ದು ಮತು< "ೇವರ ಬ ೆ> ಮತು< ?ಾವ3ಜ ಕ ೆ ಅವ!ೇಳನ -ಾ&ರುವ ಬ ೆ> ದೂರು.
Cೕಲ8ಂಡ ಷಯ7ೆ8 ಸಂಬಂF$ದಂGೆ, H ಾಂಕ: 24-12-22 ರ ಶ %ಾರದಂದು ಸಮಯ ೆ5 ೆ> ಸ ಸು-ಾರು 10 ಗಂJೆಯ K Lೕ ೇ%ಾ& ಾMಮದ K ಇರುವ ಪ:/ಾತನ Nೆಲುವ ಾರಯಣ ?ಾP2 "ೇವ?ಾQನವನುR ಒTೆಯಲು ಪMಯUR$ ಮತು< "ೇವ?ಾQನದ ಆವರಣದ K ಇರುವ ಾಗರಕಲುK !ಾಗೂ ೕರಕಲುK ಮತು< ಇ Rತರ Rತರ "ೇವರ ಮೂU3ಗಳನುR ಒTೆದು ಭಗR -ಾ&ರುGಾ</ೆ.ೆ ಎ . ಸುXಾತ ಾ/ಾಯಣ/ಾY ಎಂಬುವವರು Xೆ.$ Xೆ $. .-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR %ಾಹನವನುR ಬಳ$ (Xೆ Xೆ.$ Xೆ $. . ಸಂ[ೆ.:
ಸಂ[ೆ. 7ೆ.ಎ 7ೆ ಎ-54-2787) ಈ Cೕ ನ ಕೃತ.ವನುR
-ಾ&ರುGಾ</ೆ.ೆ ಈ Cೕ ನ "ೇವ?ಾQನವ: ಸ%ೇ3 ನಂ.
ನಂ 29 ಬಲKಹ5^ ಎ_ೆK`ಂದ ಒಟುa $<ೕಣ3 8.17 ಎಕ/ೆಯನುR !ೊಂH"ೆ.
!ೊಂH"ೆ ಈ XಾಗವನುR ಅಕMಮ%ಾb ?ಾPFೕನಪ&$7ೊಳ^ಲು ಎ . ಸುXಾತ ಾ/ಾಯಣ/ಾY ರವರು "ೇವ?ಾQನದ ಆವರಣದ K ಇರುವ ಮೂU3ಗಳನುR ಒTೆದು !ಾc$ ಮತು< "ೇವರುಗಳ ಬ ೆ> !ಾಗೂ "ೇವ?ಾQನದ ಬ ೆ> 7ೆಟa ಶಬdಗಳನುR ಬಳ$ ಅವ!ೇಳನ -ಾ&ದುd, eಾವ ಸೂfೇಮಕ8ಳg ಬಂದರೂ ಸ ೋ5 ಮಕ8ಳg ಬಂದರೂ ಬಂದರೂ ಸ "ೇವ?ಾQನವನುR ಒTೆಯ"ೇ ಡುವ:HಲK ಎಂದು ೈH"ಾd/ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಘಟ ೆಗ5ಂದ ನಮj )ಂದೂ ಧಮ3ದ ಮತು< )ಂದೂಗಳ ಘಟ ೆ ೆ ಧ7ೆ8ಯನುR ಉಂಟು -ಾ&ರುGಾ</ೆ !ಾಗೂ ?ಾವ3ಜ ಕ ಗೂ ಸಹ kೕವ ೆದ 7ೆಯನುR !ಾcರುGಾ</ೆ.
ಎ . ಸುXಾತರವರು -ಾ&ರುವ ಈ Cೕ ನ ಕೃತ.ವನುR ಮತು< ಈ ಕೃತ.7ೆ8 ಬಳ$ರುವ ಬಳ$ರುವ %ಾಹನವನುR ಮತು< ಅದನುR ವ3)$ದ Nಾಲಕನ Cೕ_ೆ 7ಾನೂನು ಕMಮವನುR ಜರುbಸ ೇ7ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ Lೕ ೇ%ಾ& ಾMಮಸQರು 7ೇ57ೊಳg^U<"ೆdೕ%ೆ.
%ೆ ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ನTೆ"ಾಗ ಇಂತಹ ವ.c<ಗಳg ಇದdರು.
ು 1) ಹನುಮಂತ ಾಯಕ, ಾಯಕ 2) Lವ ಾಯಕ, ಾಯಕ 3) ಲWÀÆ ಾಯಕ, 4) ಕ ಾಯಕ 3) ರಂಗ ಾಯಕ !ಾಗೂ ಮುಂGಾದವರು.
ಮುಂGಾದವರು NಾರವನುR ಾMಮದ ಮುಖಂಡ/ೆ_ಾK U5$ -ಾತ ಾ& ಈ Hನ ತಡ%ಾb ದೂರು ೕಡುU<"ೆdೕ ೆ.ೆ ವಂದ ೆಗfೆm ಂH ೆ, ಇಂU ಮj nಾP$, H ಾಂಕ: 27-12-2022 ಸQಳ: ೇಗೂರು.
ಈ Hನ H ಾಂಕ: 27-12-2022 ರಂದು ಸಮಯ 18:45 ಗಂJೆ ೆ oeಾ3Hಯವರು ಾ ೆ ೆ !ಾಜ/ಾb ೕ&ದ pತ ಪMಕರಣವನುR !ೊಂH7ೊಂಡು ಾ ಾ * ಸಂ:234/2022 ಕಲಂ 295(J), 504, 506, /ೆ/ . 34 ಐ.o.$. ೕGಾ. ಪMಕರಣ "ಾಖಲು -ಾ&ರುGೆ<ೕ ೆ."
(Emphasis added) The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:
-8-NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR "ಕಲಂ:
ಕಲಂ 295(J), 504, 506 ಈ 34 ಐ o $
ೇಗೂರು ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹHd ೆ ?ೇ ದ ?ೇUÉ%ಾ& ಾMಮದ Kರುವ ಬಲKಹ5^
ಾMಮದ ಎ_ೆK ೆ ?ೇ ದ ಹfೆಸ%ೇ3ನಂಬs-29 !ಾಗೂ !ೊಸ"ಾb ದುರ$<eಾbರುವ ಸ%ೇ3ನಂಬs-42 ರ 23 ಸ7ಾ3 " " ಖ/ಾಬು ಜ2ೕ ನ Kರುವ LMೕ Nೆಲುವ ಾ/ಾಯಣ?ಾP2 "ೇವ?ಾQನ ರುವ ¸ÀPÁðj ಖ/ಾಬು ಜ2ೕನನುR ?ಾPHೕನ
-ಾ&7ೊಳg^ವ ಉ"ೆdೕಶHಂದ ಈ "ೋtಾ/ೋಪಣ ಪತMದ 7ಾಲಂನಂಬs-12 ರ K ಆ/ೋo- 01 ರವರು H ಾಂಕ: 24-12-2022 ರಂದು ೆ5 ೆ> 10-00 ಗಂJೆ ಸಮಯದ K ಈ "ೋtಾ/ೋಪಣಪತMದ 7ಾಲಂನಂಬs-14 ರ K ಕಂಡ ?ಾu-07 ರವರ -ಾ ೕಕತPದ Kನ 7ೆ.ಎ-54. 2787 ರ Xೆ.$. %ಾಹನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ/ೋo-02 ರವರ ಮು[ಾಂತರ Nೆಲುವ ಾ/ಾಯಣ?ಾP2 "ೇವ?ಾQನದ ಆವರಣದ K ಅ ೆದು ಪ:/ಾತನ 7ಾಲದ ಾಗರಕಲುK, ೕರಗಲುK !ಾಗು ಇತ/ೆ "ೇವರಮೂU3ಗಳನುR Gೆ ೆದು "ೇವರಮೂU3ಗಳನುR ಭಗR ೊ5$ ಸQ5ೕಯ )ಂದೂಗಳ ಜನGೆಯ ಮUೕಯ 4ಾವ ೆಗ5 ೆ !ಾಗು )ಂದೂಧಮ37ೆ8 ಅಪ-ಾನ ೊ5$ ಆvತವನುRಂಟು -ಾ&ದುd, ಇದನುR ಪMLRಸಲು !ೋದ ?ಾu-01 ?ಾu ಂದ ?ಾu-06 ?ಾu ರವ/ೆbನವರುಗ5 ರವ/ೆbನವರುಗ5 ೆ ಆ/ೋo-01 ಆ/ೋo ರವರು ಅ%ಾಚ. ಶಬdಗ5ಂದ ೈಯುd xಾMಣ ೆದ 7ೆ !ಾcರುವ:ದು ಇದುವ/ೆ ಗೂ ನTೆ$ದ 'ತ ತ [ೆ`ಂದ ದೃಢಪzaದುd Cೕಲ8ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕGಾ. ಆ/ೋo-01 ಆ/ೋo ಮತು< ಆ/ೋo-02 ಆ/ೋo ರವರ ರುದd ಈ "ೋtಾ/ೋxಾಣ ಪತMದ ಆ/ೋಪ."
ಆ/ೋಪ (Emphasis added) The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences by the following order dated 02.02.2024:
"Perused Charge sheet and material available on record. It discloses that there are reasonable grounds at this stage to proceed against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 295(А), 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The cognizance is taken against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 295(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence Register as C.C. and issue Summons to Accused.
Returnable by 5/3/24 Sd/-
2/2/24 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gundlupet."
(Emphasis added) A perusal at the order of the concerned Court indicates blatant non-application of mind, as it does not bear even semblance of reasons for taking cognizance of the offences.
9. It is time and again indicated by this Court that the orders of the learned Magistrate or the concerned Court must bear reasons while taking cognizance. But the orders of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrates are taken in a casually in the aforesaid manner. However, taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons is a serious matter. Be that as it may.
10. The issue now would revolve around whether there is sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. or otherwise.
11. Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance of--
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Section 153-A, [Section 295-A or sub-
section (1) of Section 505] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in Section 108- A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under Section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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 120- B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1-A) 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 155."
(Emphasis supplied) For an offence under Section 295A of the IPC, where a sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. is imperative, is by now too well settled a principle of law. The Apex Court in the case of MANOJ RAI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, answering the very issue has held as follows:
".... .... ....
2. Since the learned counsel for the State fairly states on instructions that no sanction was given in accordance with Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the appellants for the offence under Section 295-A of the Penal Code, 1860, we allow this appeal and quash the impugned proceedings. Let the written instructions received by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in this regard be kept on record as desired by him."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment quashed the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellants therein for the offence punishable under Section 295-A of the IPC, due to absence of sanction under Section 196(1) of the Cr.P.C.
1(1999) 1 SCC 728
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. Again, the Apex Court in the case of PARVEZ PARWAZ v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2, while following it's earlier judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v.
PASTOR P. RAJU3, holds that the bar under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. is for taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in that Section and not for investigation of the said offences. The judgment reads 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)].
(Emphasis supplied) A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of VISHWANATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4, holds that sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. is required at the time of filing of the charge sheet before the concerned Court as 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1103 3 (2006) 6 SCC 728 4 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 501
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR the charge sheet is the basis of taking such cognizance. The judgment reads as follows:
".... .... ....
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 "taking judicial notice by a competent jurisdictional Court of law".
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. [1950 SCC 250; 1951 SCC OnLine SC 22], 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 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
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR
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."
(Emphasis supplied) This Court in the case of B. NAGARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA5, while referring to an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of RAJASINGH TAKUR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA6, holds that, lack of sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., while taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in that Section cuts at the root of the matter, leading to an obliteration of the criminal proceedings. The judgment reads as follows:
".... .... ....
5. The relevant portion of judgment of the coordinate Bench in Crl.P. No. 2576/2023 reads as follows:
"8. On the afore-narrated date i.e., 12-12-2017 the incident happens at about 6.00 p.m. where these petitioners had organized Samavesh at Vanikere Lay- out where accused No. 2, National President of Sree 5 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 14010 6 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2576 OF 2023, disposed on 06.10.2023
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR Ramasene along with others became a part of the said conglomeration. It is the case of the prosecution that directions were issued not to use any arms or make any provocative speeches. The allegation is that they have made provocative speeches with regard to certain conversions of members belonging to Hindu community and shown the sword in public. This forms the content of the report made before the jurisdictional Police by the Police who were at the spot and it becomes a crime in Crime No. 250 of 2017 for several offences including the one under Section 153A of the IPC and under the Act quoted hereinabove.
9. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court. Since one of the accused was a member of the Legislative Assembly, the matter was to be tried before the Special Court for trying offences against elected representatives. The Special Court then takes cognizance of offence and the matter was set at the stage of framing of charges. The issue now would be whether trial should be permitted to be continued for offences punishable under Section 153A of the IPC and other allied offences, in the absence of sanction as required in law to try the offence under Section 153A of the IPC.
10. Section 153A of the IPC reads as follows:
"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 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) organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity, for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Offence committed in place of worship, etc.--(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
To allege offences under Section 153A and try them, it is imperative that the State should accord sanction for prosecution of offences under Section 153A. Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. reads as follows:
"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 153-A, Section 295-A or sub-section (1) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in Section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under Section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR
(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 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1-A) 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."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. deals with prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. begins with a non- obstante clause and reads "No court shall take cognizance" for any offence under Section 153A, 153B, 295A or Section 505 of the IPC or even abatement as obtaining under Section 108A of the IPC. Sub-section (2) of Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. further mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC other than the criminal conspiracy to commit a cognizable offence as described in the provision supra provided where the criminal conspiracy is one of which the provisions of Section 195 would apply. The other offence alleged is under the Arms Act as obtaining under Section 25(1AA). It reads as follows:
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR "25. Punishment for certain offences.--
"............
(1-AA) Whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine."
Whoever would manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove or expose or offer for sale or transfer or has in his possession for sale or transfer any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall become punishable for a term of 7 years or more. When these offences are alleged against the petitioners, the admitted fact is that there is no sanction accorded under Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. as the offences alleged are against the State. Therefore, without sanction being accorded for prosecution, the Court could not have taken cognizance as Section 196 of the Cr. P.C., which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under Section 153A of the IPC. Section 153A of the IPC is what is alleged in the case at hand apart from the offence under the Act. Therefore, for want of sanction and the sanction cutting at the root of taking of cognizance, the aftermath of the order of taking of cognizance even at the first instance would tumble down.
11. It is trite law that where an offence alleged has to be tried, it has to be tried in the manner that it is said to be tried, in the statute. The setting of trial is the aftermath of taking of cognizance. Taking of cognizance can be only in the aftermath of according sanction under Section 196 of the Cr. P.C. In the light of no sanction, the proceedings under Section 153A cannot be permitted to be continued against the petitioners. This would be with regard to the sanction.
12. In the event, sanction would not be taken at the stage of cognizance, it is open for remitting of the matter back to the competent Court to continue the proceedings against the petitioner after obtaining sanction. The issue
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR then would be whether any of the offences alleged or the contents of the charge sheet so filed would in any manner become the ingredients of Section 153A of the IPC. [....]"
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the petition deserves to succeed with the order of taking cognizance being set at naught.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:
ORDER a. The criminal petitions are allowed.
b. The order taking cognizance of the offences, as it is taken without at the outset sanction being placed before the concerned Court as obtaining under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. stands obliterated and consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No.42/2024 stands quashed.
c. It is open to the State to place the order of sanction before the concerned Court and the concerned Court in the event sanction is placed, shall regulate its procedure thereafter.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3310 CRL.P No. 2509 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 4844 of 2024 HC-KAR d. In the event, there is no sanction obtained and placed before the concerned Court, there would be no proceedings before the concerned Court.
e. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail of such remedy as is available in law, in the event of need in future.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5