Karnataka High Court
Bandi Nagendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3280
CRL.P No. 8124 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. 8124 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. BANDI NAGENDRA,
S/O BANDI NAGAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDARAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL,
ANANTHAPUR - 515 701,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
2. B.NAGENDRA,
S/O B.OBALESH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT SINGANAMALA VILLAGE,
SINGANAMALA MANDAL,
Digitally ANANTHAPUR - 515 435,
signed by
NAGAVENI ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
Location: ...PETITIONERS
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY BAGEPALLI
POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
AND BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3280
CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. R.SHIVAPPA,
S/O Y.RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
WORKING AS EXTENSION OFFICER,
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SST TEAM - 2, DEVARAJ URS BHAVAN,
BAGEPALLI TOWN - 561 207,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND PROCEEDINGS IN NCR
NO.154/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BAGEPALLI, AND CRIME NO.118/2024 DATED 21.03.2024
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN AND IN WHICH COGNIZANCE IS TAKEN
U/S.171-E OF THE IPC, 1860 WHICH IS PENDING IN THE
COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3280
CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in NCR No.154/2024 and Crime No.118/2024 registered for offence punishable under Section 171E of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri.Shreeram Timmappa Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The 2nd respondent is the complainant-the Election Officer. The vehicle of the petitioners was intercepted at Bagepalli check post, which is border between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The allegation is that the petitioners were carrying 96 wrist watches, holding the photo of YSCRP leader Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy. Therefore, the offence springs under Section 171E. The registration of the crime is -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ingredients necessary under Section 171E is not found even to its semblance in the case at hand. Therefore, would seek for quashment of the proceedings.
5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would however defend the action and contend that the trial in the least must be permitted to be continued.
6. 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.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The complaint is registered on 21.03.2024. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint:
-5-NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR "ರವ ೆ ಾಂಕ:20.03.2024 ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು ಾ ೇಪ ೕ ಾ ೆ ಾ ೇಪ ಕ ಬ ಾ ಪ ರ !ೆ.
ಇಂದ ಆ$ %ವಪ& '( )ೈ +ಾಮಣ., 47 ವಷ0, 1ಂದು2ದ ವಗ0ಗಳ ಕಲ6 ಾ ಇ!ಾ7ೆಯ 9:ಾ;ಣ0<=ಾ ಗಳ> ಎ .ಎ .@-@ೕಂ-02, Aೇವ+ಾಜ ಅರಸು ಭವನ ಾ ೇಪ Gೌ(. ªÉÆÃ:9945985614.
Iಾನ6+ೆ, 9ಷಯ: ಅನ<ಕೃತ)ಾL ಅಂದMಪMAೇಶ ಮುಖ6ಮಂPM )ೈ ಎ ಜಗ( Qೕಹ( +ೆST ರವರ Uಾವ ತM9ರವ )ಾVಗಳನುW :ಾ ಾX=ೆ IಾಡುP;ರುವವರ 9ರುದZ ಸೂಕ; ಕMಮ ಜರುLಸಲು =ೋ .
**** ಈ ]ೕಲ ಂಡ 9ಷಯ=ೆ ಸಂಬಂ<^ದಂ_ೆ ತಮ` =ೋರುವ Aೆ ೆಂದ+ೆ, ಆ$ %ವಪ& '( )ೈ +ಾಮಣ. ಆದ ಾನು ೕಡುP;ರುವ ದೂರು ಏ ೆಂದ+ೆ, ನನ ೆ ಮುಂಬರುವ ಕ ಬ ಾ ಪ ರ !ೋಕಸUಾ ಚು ಾವ ಾ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾ ೇಪ 9dಾನಸUಾ eೇತM 140 ಎ .ಎ .@-@ೕಂ-02 @ೕf ೕಡ$ ಆL ನನ ೆ ಕತ0ವ6=ೆ ೇಮಕ IಾSರು_ಾ;+ೆ. ಅದರಂ_ೆ ಾಂಕ:20.03.2024 ರಂದು ಮAಾ6ಹW 2.00 ಗಂGೆgಂದ +ಾPM 10.00 ಗಂGೆಯವ ೆ ಾನು ನಮ` ತಂಡದವ+ಾದ ಅhೆiೕಕ ಉ!ೋಡು ಾMಮಪಂkಾg;, =ಾಯ0ದ%0, lಾಗೂ ಾ ೇಪ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ m^ 574 ರnೕo ಬS ೇ$ lಾಗೂ m^ 575 9 ಯಪ& 1 ತನದ ರವ+ೊಂ ೆ ಾ ೇಪ Gೋp qಾrಾದ ಬ2 kೆo ೕ sನ ಕತ0ವ6 ವ01ಸುP;AಾZಗ +ಾPM 7.30 ಗಂGೆ ಸಮಯದ ಅಂದMಪMAೇಶದ ಕtೆgಂದ AP.39.HE.1111 ೊಂದX ಸಂ7ೆ6ಯ uಾಚೂ0ನ$ =ಾರು ಬಂ ದುZ kೆo Iಾಡ!ಾL ಇಬvರು ವ6w;ಗ2ದುZ lೆಸರು 9 ಾಸ =ೇಳ!ಾL 1) ಬಂS ಾ ೇಂದM '( ಬಂS ಾಗಮ ಅನಂತಪ ರ Q.7780600504, 2) ಾ ೇಂದM ' ಗ( Iಾ6( ಎm^ 345 ಅನಂತಪ ರ Sಎಆ$ Q:8897311558 ಎಂದು P2^ದುZ ನಂತರ =ಾ ನ ದZ 4 +ೆ@sನ ಾoxಗಳನುW kೆo Iಾಡ!ಾL ಅದರ ಅಂದM ಮುಖ6ಮಂPM )ೈ ಎ ಜಗ(Qೕಹ( +ೆST ರವರ Uಾವ ತM9ರವ )ಾVಗ2ದುZ )ಾVಗಳನುW ಎX=ೆ IಾS ೋಡ!ಾL 96 )ಾVಗ2ರುತ;)ೆ.
ಸದ )ಾVಗಳ ಬ ೆy Aಾಖ!ಾPಗಳನುW 9kಾ ಸ!ಾL zಾವ Aೇ Aಾಖ!ಾPಗಳ> ಇರುವ ಲ)ೆಂದು P2^ರು_ಾ;+ೆ.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR ಆದZ ಂದ ]ೕಲ ಂಡವರು ತಮ` ಬ2 ಇರುವ )ಾVಗಳ ಬ ೆy ಯವ Aೇ Aಾಖ!ಾPಯನುW lೊಂ ರುವ ಲ)ಾದZ ಂದ AP.39.HE.1111 ೊಂದX ಸಂ7ೆ6ಯ uಾಚೂ0ನ$ =ಾರು, ಅಂಧMಪMAೇಶ ಮುಖ6ಮಂPM )ೈ ಎ ಜಗ(Qೕಹ( +ೆST ರವರ Uಾವ ತM9ರುವ 96 )ಾVಗಳನುW ಪಂಚ ಾ]ಯ ಮೂಲಕ ವಶ=ೆ ಪtೆದು=ೊಂಡು ತಮ` ಮುಂAೆ lಾಜರುಪSಸುP;ದುZ 1) ಬಂS ಾ ೇಂದM '( ಬಂS ಾಗಮ ಅನಂತಪ ರ Q:7780600504, 2) ಾ ೇಂದM ' ಗ( Iಾ6( ಎm^ 345 ಅನಂತಪ ರ Sಎಆ$ Q:8897311558 lಾಗೂ AP.39.HE.1111 ೊಂದX ಸಂ7ೆ6ಯ uಾಚೂ0ನ$ =ಾ ನ Iಾ ೕಕರ 9ರುದ{ ಮುಂ ನ ಕMಮ ಜರುLಸಲು =ೋರು_ೆ;ೕ ೆ.
ತಮ` ನಂಬು ೆಯ Sd/-
(R.Shivappa) SST Team leads Bagepalli."
8. Section 171E is alleged pursuant to the complaint in the crime in Crime No.118/2024. The purport of Section 171E need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court in the case of M. MALURU ES EN KRISHNAIAH SETTY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 19647, while considering an identical fact situation of the offence under Section 171E, has held as follows:
"9. The issue whether the informant has to go to the learned Magistrate to seek permission or the Station House Officer need not be gone into, as in the opinion of the Court, the offence under Section 171E is not even attracted in the case at hand. Section 171E of the IPC reads as follows:
"171-E. Punishment for bribery.-- Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be -7- NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both:
Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
Explanation.--"Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision."
For an offence to become punishable under Section 171E of the IPC which is the punishment for bribery, the ingredients as necessary under Section 171B are required to be present. Section 171B of the IPC 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.
(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."
Section 171B mandates that any person who gives gratification to any person with an object of inducing any other person to exercise electoral right or any person accepts either for himself or for -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR other person any gratification is said to be committing the offence of bribe.
10. What is found in the case at hand is not distribution of ration by the petitioner but stock of ration. This, unless the petitioner is caught distributing or anybody else receiving such distribution of ration, would not attract the ingredients of Section 171B of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 171E of the IPC.
11. This Court in the case of Shri Yuvaraj v. The State of Karnataka, held as follows:
"........
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 1560/2024, disposed of on 05.04.2024, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the proceedings are liable to be voided because:
(i) What all has been alleged in the FIR/Charge Sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and the ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking; therefore, the matter would fit into one of the postulates in STATE of HARYANA v. CHOWDHARY BHAJAN LAL, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 which has been reiterated in M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT.
LTD. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315.
(ii) The order of the learned Magistrate which grants permission which occurs at page No. 33 of the PETITION is as cryptic as can be and further it does not disclose any application of mind nor it is reasoned.
3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the Respondent − State vehemently opposes the Petition contending that by looking to the entire material of charge -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR Sheet filed by the police after investigation, it cannot be said that the proceedings are unsustainable. If petitioner faces the trial, no prejudice would be caused to her and that the same would do justice to herself and to the public interest. Even otherwise, petitioner can tap the provisions for discharge or the like, at the hands of learned Magistrate himself, instead of pressing this petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Chapter IXA came to be added to the statute book namely Penal Code, 1860 by way of amendment, with intent to bring purity in election process. It seeks to make punishable under the ordinary penal law, bribery, undue influence & personation, and certain other malpractices at elections not only to the Legislative bodies, but also to membership of public authorities where the law prescribes a method of election. Further, it intends to debar persons guilty of malpractices from holding positions of public responsibility for a specific period. This chapter has to be read along with the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as it contains additional penalties for certain offences, e.g., sections 171E to 171F of this Code. Thus a conviction under Section 171E or Section 171F of IPC amounts to a disqualification u/s. 8 of RP Act, 1951. This chapter comprises of both a dictionary clause and penal provisions.
(b) The offence of bribery is defined under Section 171B of IPC as under:
"171B. 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR 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.
(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"
This section defines bribery as an electoral offence, primarily as the giving or accepting of a gratification either as a motive or as a reward to any person, either to induce him to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election. In terms of sub-section (2) inter alia it includes offers or agreements to offer and attempt to procure a gratification. "Gratification"
is explained in Section 161 as not being restricted to only pecuniary things. Section 171-B(1)(i) provides that if gratification is given to any person inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right, it amounts to commission of the offence of bribery.
(c) In the above backdrop, let me examine the penal provision namely Section 171(E) of IPC which reads as under:
"Punishment for bribery.--Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both:
Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only."
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR In order to fit into the definition of 'bribery' the requirement is that there should be a person who gives or at least offers to give any gratification as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right, by another person. Thus, there should be minimum two persons involved in the act, namely one who bribes or offers to bribe and the other who is bribed or offered bribe.
(d) Added to the above, it is not the case of respondents that the alleged act has been done by the person concerned for and on behalf of the petitioner herein. To put it succinctly, what emerges from the complaint is that a particular person was carrying the money and that the same has been seized since it was suspected to be used for electoral offences. All that does not amount to the offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, and therefore there is no scope for invoking Section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(e) The next allegation in the complaint relates to the offence punishable under Section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The same reads as under:
"Penalty for illegal hiring or procuring of conveyance at elections.--If any person is guilty of any such corrupt practice as is specified in clause (5) of Section 123 at or in connection with an election, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months and with fine."
The above penal provision in turn refers to a corrupt practice as is specified inter alia in clause 5 of Section 123 at or in connection with an election. Section 123 deals with certain acts as corrupt practices. Sub-section(5) specifies one of them, with the following text:
"(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR candidate or his election agent] [or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance] of any elector (other than the candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under Section 25 or a place fixed under subsection (1) of Section 29 for the poll"
Employing the vehicle or vessel as contemplated in the above provision, is a sine qua non for the invocation of Section
133. It is nobody's case that something of the kind exists in the allegations leveled against the person concerned and more particularly, the petitioner herein. In the absence of ingredients as specified in Section 123(5), one would be miles away from the precincts of Section 133 of 1951 Act.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. The proceedings in Crime No. 52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, now pending in CC No. 2990/2023 on the file of learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under sections 120(1) & 133 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of Penal Code, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set free of the subject case."
4. In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No. 2990/2023 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court, Nipani, qua the petitioner, stand quashed."
(Emphasis in original)
12. In light of the issue standing covered by the order passed by this Court (supra) and on finding no ingredient of Section 171E of IPC being attracted in the case at hand, the crime registered against the petitioner
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability, leads to its obliteration."
(Emphasis supplied) As observed, Section 171E punishes bribery. Bribery is defined under Section 171B. The person who gives gratification to any person with an object to inducing any other person in exercise of electoral right would become an offence. The petitioners were caught with watches, not with distribution of watches, that too of a candidate that had no representation in the State of Karnataka. In that light, permitting investigation into registration of the crime itself would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER [I] Criminal Petition is allowed.
[II] Complaint and proceedings in NCR No.154/2024 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3280 CRL.P No. 8124 of 2024 HC-KAR Bagepalli, and Crime No.118/2024 qua the petitioners, stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12