Karnataka High Court
Prakash Khandre S/O Chanbasappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka Through Its By ... on 30 June, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200359/2014
BETWEEN:
Prakash Khandre S/o Chanbasappa Khandre
Aged : 56 years, Occupation: Social worker
R/o Bhalki
District: Bidar.
...PETITIONER
(By J.K. Bukka and Shri Sandeep Patil, Advocates)
AND:
The State of Karnataka through its by
Police Station Rural and
Deputy Superintendent of Police COD
Taluka: Bhalki
District: Bidar.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri Sanjay A. Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pleased to quash the entire
initiation of the proceeding under section 153 IPC and 125 R.P
act Crime No.52/2004 now C.C.No.192/2012 registered by
2
respondent police Bhalki and pending on the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bhalki, in the interest of justice and
equity.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following :-
ORDER
The petitioner is said to belong to a political party. It was alleged against the present petitioner and two others that they were using a Megaphone to play recorded music and speeches denigrating a candidate belonging to a rival political party. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the local villagers, that the Police had initiated action against the petitioner. That was in the year 2004. The Police had conducted a spot panchanama and claimed to have taken further steps. However, it is only in the year 2013 that the petitioner has received summons of the alleged proceedings initiated under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 3 1951 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'RP Act', for brevity) . It is that which is the subject matter of the present petition.
2. It is pointed out that a petition in Criminal Petition No.10670/2013 filed by another accused, against whom similar allegations were made, was allowed on the ground that there is illegality in registering the case without the prior permission of the Magistrate and also on account of delay of 9 years in issuing summons, which is not maintainable.
3. On the face of it, it is found that though the incident is said to be of the year 2004, the petitioner has been issued summons only in the year 2013. Therefore, from the express language of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence punishable under Section 125 of the RP Act being punishable with imprisonment of three years or fine or both, the cognizance apparently having been taken in respect of the alleged offence several years after the institution of the complaint, is bad in law and is barred by limitation. 4
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the present petitioner stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv