Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraj S/O Hanumanthappa Bilgar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272
CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102513 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRHI NAGARAJ S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA BILGAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: FARMAR,
R/O. BUDAGUMPA, TQ. KARATAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI C. R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KARATAGI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580002.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S 2. SHRI RAJSHEKARGOUDA S/O. CHADRSHEKARGOUDA
HARIHAR
Location: High
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
Court of LAND RECORDS, R/O. MEDINAPUR,
Karnataka, TQ. LINGASUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101,
Dharwad Bench
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528
OF BNSS), SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE
DATED 26.10.2024 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
KARATAGI, (ITANERARY COURT KARATAGI), IN C.C.NO. 3495/2024
(IN P.S. CRIME NO.66/2024, OF KARTAGI POLICE STATION) FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 171(H) OF IPC AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 IS CONCERN IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272
CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. C.R.Hiremath., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents - State.
2. The petitioner - accused No.6 has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., [582 of BNSS, 2023], praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3495/2024, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Karatagi (Itinerary Court at Karatagi), arising out of Karatagi Police Station Crime No.66/2024, registered for the offence punishable under Section 171-H of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
On 26.03.2024 at about 11:00 a.m., near BJP party office at Karatagi on Navali road, CWs.1 to 5 were on duty in respect of Member of General Election of Parliament, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272 CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025 HC-KAR 2024 as Flying Squad-06. At that time, under the leadership of accused Nos.1 to 3, accused Nos.4 to 31 assembled near BJP party office and attempted to canvass on behalf of the BJP party without obtaining any prior permission by the Election Commission and thereby, they violated the Code of Conduct of Election and committed the offence punishable under Section 171-H of IPC. Hence, the first informant lodged complaint, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.
4. The main grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the proceedings initiated under Sections 171-H of IPC is illegal. Section 171-H of IPC is a non-cognizable offence, and the police cannot investigate such case without prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition by quashing the entire proceedings.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272 CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the respondent-State had appointed observers and after having come to know that the accused persons have violated the code of conduct of Election Commission, a complaint was registered against the accused persons. He would also contend that after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. Now the petitioner cannot contend that the entire proceedings are illegal and as such, the proceedings cannot be quashed. He would further contend that there are no good grounds to quash the proceedings. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. The first informant lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 171-H of IPC. Section 171-H of IPC reads as under;
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272 CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025 HC-KAR "171H. Illegal payments in connection with an election.--Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:
Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate."
8. On careful perusal of the records, it discloses that the Station House Officer registered FIR without permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate and proceeds investigation for an offence punishable under Section 171-H of IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. In turn, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the said offence. However, Section 171-H of IPC is a non- cognizable in nature. Thus, the entire proceedings are also hit by Sections 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272 CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. As could be seen from Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., it is an absolute bar, which says that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is a clear violation of the procedure as established by law. Learned HCGP does not dispute the irregularity committed by the Police Officer, as well as the cognizance taken by the Magistrate.
10. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate appears to be an illegal and he ought not to have taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 171-H of IPC without compliance under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In light of the same, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8272 CRL.P No. 102513 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3495/2024, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Karatagi (Itinerary Court, Karatagi) arising out of Karatagi Police Station Crime No.66/2024, registered for the offence punishable under Section 171-H of IPC., insofar as the petitioner-
accused No.6 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
iii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM /CT-AN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16