Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. C T Ravi vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:47693
                                                           WP No. 26501 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 26501 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI. C T RAVI
                         S/O THIMMEGOWDA C E
                         AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                         R/O DEVADATHA NILAYA
                         BASAVANAHALLI ROAD,
                         CHIKKAMAGALURU-577001
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. D P MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         BY CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN POLICE
                         REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                         HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         BANGALORE-560001
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
                   2.    SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 DS-1, ADMINISTRATOR
KARNATAKA                ZILLA PANCHAYATH
                         CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2)

                        THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
                   PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.445/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
                   171-G OF I.P.C PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
                   JUDGE AND C.J.M, CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE ANNX-D.

                         THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
                   'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:47693
                                         WP No. 26501 of 2024




CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.445/2024, pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, arising out of Crime No.48 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 171G of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent - Administrator of Zilla Panchayath on 20.03.2024, alleging that during the Lok Sabha elections of Udupi - Chikkamagalur constituency held in the year 2024, alleging that the petitioner has posted a statement on twitter on 18.03.2024 indicating a particular religion or community and this statement is in violation of Code of Conduct of Elections. Based upon this complaint, initially a FIR comes to be registered for offences -3- NC: 2024:KHC:47693 WP No. 26501 of 2024 punishable under Sections 153A of the IPC and Section 126 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. The police after conduct of investigation, file a charge sheet for the offence under Section 171G of the IPC in C.C.No.445/2024. It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court calling in question registration and continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.445/2024.

4. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided by this Court in Crl.P.No.4917/2024, disposed on 29.08.2024, wherein this Court has examined the issue and offence alleged against the petitioner therein. While so examining, this Court has held as follows:

"3. A complaint comes to be registered on 30.04.2024 alleging that on 18.04.2024 when the candidate was conducting a march to filing the nomination for the Lok Sabha elections between 2.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., a speech is made by the petitioner against one Mr.Shivanand Patil, alleging that it amounted to character assassination, the complaint comes to be registered by the Election Officer alleging the aforesaid offences.
4. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. The issue would be whether the offence alleged under Section 171G of the IPC is met in the case at hand. Section 171G of the IPC reads as follows:
"171G. False statement in connection with an election.--Whoever with intent to -4- NC: 2024:KHC:47693 WP No. 26501 of 2024 affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine."

Section 171G of the IPC directs that whoever with an intent to affect the result of an election, makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false would become punishable.

5. The further mandate of Section 171G of the IPC is that false statement should be made of character or conduct of any candidate, who is contesting in the election. In the case at hand, the petitioner has allegedly spoken about the character of one Mr.Shivanand Patil. It is an admitted fact that the said person against whom the petitioner had spoken was not a candidate for the elections then. Therefore, Section 171G of the IPC would not be met. Though Section 171G of the IPC would spring into action not by a candidate but by whoever would make any statement, which would famish the personal character or conduct of any candidate, it need not be another candidate in the election. In the case at hand, since the petitioner had made certain statements about one Mr.Shivanand Patil, who was not the candidate who was contesting for election, Section 171G of the IPC would not be met. The same goes with Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and 1988.

6. In the light of the ingredient of the offence under Section 171G of the IPC not being met, permitting further investigation even in the case at hand would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. The petition thus deserves to succeed with an observation that the finding herein would not become applicable or come in the way of any other proceedings pending between the parties before any other fora."

-5-

NC: 2024:KHC:47693 WP No. 26501 of 2024 The aforesaid order passed by this Court would cover the case at hand on all its fours. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court supra, the following:

ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.445/2024 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, stand quashed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48