Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.10453 OF 2020 ( GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O M MASTAN RAO
AGED 30 YEARS
OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE
R/O BELAGAVI BARODA BANK
MARUTHI GALLI
BELAGAVI-590 002.
ALSO AT KALAHASTHI TALUKA
ANDHRA PRADESH-517 640.
2. MR. HARISH NAIK S
S/O SEVIYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC: ATTENDER
R/O KUBER NAGAR
CHALLAKERE TOWN
CHALLAKERE-577 522. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA RURAL
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER, HIGH COURT
2
BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. A.B. VIJAYKUMAR
ASST. ELECTION OFFICER
NO.99, CHITRADURGA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
CHITRADURGA-577 522. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CHARGE SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-D DATED 03.08.2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE THEREBY ALLEGING THAT THE PETITIONERS
HAVE COMMITTED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 171 (F)
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3228/2019 VIDE ANNUXURE-D1 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
CHITRADURGA, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 171(F) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE BY
CALLING FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in CC No.3228/2019 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 171(f) of IPC.
3
2. Sri.Nandish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no offence which can be stated to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 171(f) which deals with punishment for undue influence and pursuant to offence under Section 171(c) of IPC.
3. He submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were stopped by the jurisdiction police who seized Rs.70.00 lakhs in cash and thereby alleged that the petitioners are using the said amount for bribe or otherwise during the election process however no such allegation has been made nor complaint has been filed under Section 171(b) or 171(h) of the IPC.
4. The monies relating to the petitioners' bank has been permitted to be returned to the bank on application being filed under Section 457 of Cr.PC by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga vide order dated 08.05.2019.
4
5. In the above background, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the amounts belonging to the bank and the bank having claimed the same even if it is to be contended otherwise no offences under Section 171(b) or 171 (h) are not made out.
6. Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP submits that the charge sheet has been filed after investigation, therefore indicating that the offences under Section 171 (f) of Cr.P.C has been committed and as such, he submits that this Court may not interfere in the matter.
7. Heard Sri.Nandish Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondents.
8. A perusal of the entire records would indicate that the papers do not indicate an offence committed under Section 171 (f) of the IPC. Section 171 (f) of IPC itself being 5 punishment for offences punishable under Section 171(c) of IPC which has been reproduced hereinbelow.
"Section 171C. Undue influence at elections.--
(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever--
(a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or (b ) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub -
section (1).
(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section.] Section 171F: Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.--Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both."
9. Even otherwise if there is a mistake in the said provision be quoted or typographical error in mentioning the 6 provision in the FIR and that at the most it should be 171
(b) of IPC for an offence punishable under Section 171 (h) even such of the offences cannot be said to have been made out when the money was being transferred from one branch of the bank to the other branch in the normal course of business.
10. No ingredients made out. Hence, proceedings in CC No.3228/2019 pending before II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE UN