Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandru C S vs State By Whitefield Police Station on 22 April, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:22065
CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3684 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRU C. S.,
S/O LATE SANNA ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT CHITTAGANAHALLI VILLEGE
KILARALAHALLI POST
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PUTTASWAMY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY
by PADMAVATHI
BK STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: High HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Court of BENGALURU - 560 001.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15594/2023 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 171E, 171F OF IPC AND SEC.123(1) OF
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1950 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED 1ST A.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL AT
BENGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:22065
CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.15594 of 2023 pending before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.
2. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner after the Magistrate permitting investigation for offences punishable under Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC and Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. After registration of the crime, the police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The concerned Court, by its order dated 26-12-2023 takes cognizance of the offence and registers C.C.No.15594 of 2023 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Registration of the CC and issuance of summons is what is called in question in the case at hand.
-3-NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri Puttaswamy K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt Sowmya R, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is neither a member nor a worker of any political party. He is a lecturer by profession and without any rhyme or reason he is dragged into these proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that the concerned Court has not rendered any reasons to take cognizance of the offence under Section 171E and 171F of the IPC.
5. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the petitioner must face trial and come out clean thereof.
6. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 171E and 171F of the IPC, interpretation of the two, need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court, interpreting Section 171E of the IPC in the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR case of M. MALURU ES EN KRISHNAIAH SETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The search that is conducted in the house of the petitioner leads to registration of a complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾನ ೇ, ಷಯ: "ಾಂ#ನಗರ $ಾನ ಸ&ಾ 'ೇತ)ದ +,ೆ- ಪ ದ ಸಂಭವ ೕಯ ಅಭ 23 4)ೕ ಕೃಷ6ಯ 7ೆ89 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ ಮ<ೆಯ ಮತ=ಾರ "ೆ ಹಂ?@ೆ ಾA ಮತಗಳ ಆBಷCಡEಲು ಸಂಗ)GHದI JನH =ಾKಾLನುಗಳ ಕು ತು ದೂರು =ಾಖ H @ಾನೂನು ಕ)ಮವGಸುವ ಬ"ೆO. ಉ ೇಖ: J<ಾಂಕ: 01-04-2023 ರಂದು ಸದ ಸYಳ@ೆZ &ೇ8 ೕA JನH =ಾKಾLನುಗಳನು[ ಪ 4ೕ Hರುವ \ೕ ೆ"ೆ.
**** \ೕಲZಂಡ ಷಯ@ೆZ ಸಂಬಂ#Hದಂ^ೆ, 2023 ಕ<ಾ3ಟಕ $ಾನಸ&ಾ ಚು<ಾವ ೆಗಳನು[ ನaೆಸುbLರುವ ಅಂಗcಾd ನಂ.157, ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ $ಾನಸ&ಾ 'ೇತ)ದ ಸಂಭ ಸಬಹು=ಾದ ಚು<ಾವ ೆ ೕb ಸಂG^ೆಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂಘ<ೆfಾಗದಂ^ೆ ಚು<ಾವ ೆ ನaೆಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಮುಖ ಚು<ಾವ ಾ#@ಾ ಯವ ಂದ ರ?ತcಾdರುವ Model code of Conduct (MCC) @ಾಯ3@ೆZ <ೋಡh ಅ#@ಾ ಗಳ <ೇತೃತ ದ @ಾಯ3 ವ3GಸುbLರುವiದು ಸ ಯjೆ9 "ಾಂ#ನಗರ $ಾನ ಸ&ಾ 'ೇತ)ದ +,ೆ- ಪ ದ ಸಂಭವ ೕಯ ಅಭ 23fಾದ 4)ೕ ಕೃಷ6ಯ 7ೆ89 ಎಂಬುವವರ ಮ<ೆಯ ಮತ=ಾರ ಂದ ಮತಗಳನು[ ಗkಸಲು ಆBಷCಡEಲು ಅಕ)ಮcಾd JನH =ಾKಾLನುಗಳನು[ ಸಂಗ)GHರುವ ಬ"ೆO ಾನ <ೊaೆh ಅ#@ಾ ಗk"ೆ ಬಲ ಮೂಲಗkಂದ ದೂರು ಬಂದ G<ೆ[ ೆಯ ಾನ 1 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 19647 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR <ೋಡh ಅ#@ಾ ಗಳl ಕತ3ವ ದ ದI FST -05 ತಂಡ@ೆZ ೕAದ ಆ=ೇಶದಂ^ೆ <ೋaೆh ಅ#@ಾ ಗಳ <ೇತೃತ ದ ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ ಇnopೆಕ9q ರವ ೊಂJ"ೆ ಜಂ8fಾd ಉ ೇಖದ J<ಾಂಕದಂದು ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ, 10 <ೇ \ೖn, 17 <ೇ @ಾ) ನ ರುವ ಮ<ೆ ನಂ: 50 ರ ಮ<ೆಯ ಖುದುI ಪ 4ೕ ಸ ಾtತು. ಸYಳದ ಲ'ಾಂತರ ರೂpಾt ೆ ೆ ಾಳlವ JನH =ಾKಾLನುಗಳನು[ ಸಂಗ)GHರುವiದು ಕಂಡುಬಂJರುತL=ೆ. =ಾKಾLನುಗಳನು[ ಸಂಗ)GHರುವiದ@ೆZ ಅನುಮb/ರHೕJ/ಇ^ಾ J =ಾಖ ಾbಗಳನು[ @ೇk=ಾಗ ಸಂಗ)ಹ=ಾರರು/ಅವರ ಕaೆಯವರು fಾವi=ೇ =ಾಖ ೆಗಳನು[ <ೋaೆh ಅ#@ಾ ಗk"ೆ uಾಜರುಪAHರುವiJಲ.
ಮತ=ಾರರ ಮತಗಳನು[ Kೆvೆಯುವ ಉ=ೆIೕಶJಂದ \ೕಲZಂಡ JನH =ಾKಾLನುಗಳನು[ ಅಕ)ಮcಾd ಸಂಗ)GHರುವiದು ಪ),ಾ ಪ)b # @ಾwI ಮತುL ಐ-H ಕಲಂಗಳನು[ ಉಲಂyHದಂ^ಾdರುವiದ ಂದ ಈ =ಾKಾLನುಗಳನು[ ಸಂಗ)GHರುವವರ ರುದ{ ಪ),ಾ ಪ)b # @ಾwI uಾಗೂ ಐ.-.H. @ಾwI ಪ)@ಾರ @ಾನೂನು ಕ)ಮವGಸಲು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ @ೋ =ೆ ¸À»/-
[4)ೕ H ಲ }ಣಪ•] FST-05 vÀAqÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ಅ€ಯಂತರರು, ++ಎಂ-, pಾಡ3 ನಂ: 76, "ಾtb) ನಗರ,"
The crux of the complaint is that in the house of the petitioner, he had stored illegal ration worth several lakhs of rupees, for which the petitioner failed to produce any documents. It is alleged that the grains was stored for distribution during the elections, to woo the voters. Based upon the said complaint, permission is sought from the hands of the learned Magistrate. Permission is granted for registration of crime.
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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both:-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 other person any gratification is said to be committing the offence of bribe.
-7-NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
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 (Crl.P.No.7180 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024), 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 vs CHOWDHARY BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604 which has been reiterated in M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, 2021 SCC OnLine 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.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the Respondent - State vehemently opposes the Petition contending that by looking to the entire material of charge 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 IPC, 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.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
(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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR 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."
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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 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 sub-
section (1) of section 29 for the poll"
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 133of 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 IPC, 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 is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability, leads to its obliteration.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Crime registered in Crime No.1125 of 2023 (Old No.65 of 2023) by the Malleswaram Police Station, Bengaluru and pending before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed."
7. Insofar as Section 171F of the IPC is concerned, this Court in the case of JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. The complaint nowhere narrates that the petitioner has unduly interfered with the free exercise of anyone's electoral right, nor does it narrates that the petitioner is guilty of personation as defined under Section 171D of the IPC in the elections. An incident to become an offence under Section 17 IF, the minimum requirement is narration in the complaint of the ingredients of undue influence or personation. The allegation is that Code of Conduct has been violated by the petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on 07-05-2023 by threatening the voters. The complaint is so vague that it would daunt vagueness itself. On such a vague complaint which is loosely made against the petitioner, the crime in Crime No. 89 of 2023 is registered and the damocles sword of crime is left hanging on the petitioner projecting it to be an offence.
22023 SCC OnLine Kar 1376
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. If on the aforesaid facts further investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner it would become a classic case of permitting investigation in a reckless registration of crime which on the face of it, would become an abuse of the process of law. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SC
335.] , in the circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:
"... .... ....
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XTV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court lays down 7 postulates of interference at the stage of registration of crime. Thefirst
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR postulate is that where the allegations even if they are taken on their face value they would not make out a case against the accused. The fifth postulate is that where the allegations in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable, it would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. The seventh postulate is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted with a view to spite the accused, such proceedings should be quashed.
10. Three of the aforesaid postulates become completely applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, permitting further proceedings would be putting a premium upon reckless registration of crime against the petitioner. Thus, this should be nipped in the bud by entertaining the petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as the complaint itself nowhere makes out any offence against the petitioner that would become punishable under Section 171F of the IPC. In the light of the issue being answered on the merit of the matter itself, the submission with regard to nonapplication of mind by the Learned Magistrate while granting permission for registration of FIR and on that score matter being remitted back to the Learned Magistrate for re- consideration, would pale into insignificance. Finding no merit in the complaint, the petition deserves to succeed.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire investigation in Crime No. 89/2023 of Harapanahalli Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), CJM Court Harapanahalli stands quashed qua the petitioner."
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22065 CRL.P No. 3684 of 2026 HC-KAR
8. In the light of the issues being answered in favour of the petitioners therein in the afore-quoted judgments, and the offences in the case at hand also being the same, it would necessarily meet its quashment.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.15594 of 2023 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22