Karnataka High Court
Shri Gurushantayya Shadaksharayya vs State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101
CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100199 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI GURUSHANTAYYA SHADAKSHARAYYA
NADUVINMATH
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF NADUVINMATH ONI
YALAKKI ONI
TALUK AND DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 110.
2. MALLIKARJUN HANUMANTAPPA BUDAGATTI
AGE: 46 YEARS
OCCUPATION: POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF KALLIHAL TALUK
DISTRICT: HAVERI-577 233.
3. PRASANNA MADIVALLAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 27 YEARS
Digitally OCC. POLITICIANS
signed by RESIDENT OF ASHWINI NAGAR
ANJALI M TALUK AND DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 110.
Location:
High Court 4. BASAVARAJ HULLAPPA HEDIGONDA
of AGE: 60 YEARS
Karnataka OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF DEVAGIRI
HAVERI-581 110.
5. PREMA SANGANABASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF HULAGUR
TALUK: SHIGGAVI
DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 126.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101
CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. RAVI LAKSHAMANNA PUTRANKAR
AGE: 50 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF GADIGER ONI
HAVERI-581 110.
7. ASHIFALI MAHABUBALI ADUR
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF MULLANAKERI
HAVERI-581 110.
8. SHEKARAPPA VASARAPPA VADDUR
AGE: 55 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF KARJAGI
TALUK AND DISTRICT:HAVERI 581 112.
9. MAINUDDIN KHALANDARSAB KAMALAPUR
AGE: 39 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF CHANNAMMA
ATOMOTIVE COMPANY
TALUK AND DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 110.
10. SUBHANI NADAF
AGE: 32 YEARS
OCC. POLITICIANS
RESIDENT OF ANEHONDA
TALUK AND DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 110.
11. NAGAPPA HANUMANTAPPA DUNDI
AGE: 39 YEARS
OCC. FARMER
RESIDENT OF KRISHNAPUR
TALUK: SAVANUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 110.
12. SHARATHKUMAR NAGARAJ KHASHAMBI
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC. ELECTRICIAN
RESIDENT OF POLICE
QUTRAS KERIMATTI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101
CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026
HC-KAR
TALUK: DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATARAO N. DESHMUKH, FOR
SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION
HAVERI
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD-580 011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HAVERI
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.90 OF 2024, CRIME NO.54 OF 2024 HAVERI
TOWN POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171C, 171F, 171H OF IPC, UNDER
SECTION 123(2) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1950, 1951,
1989 AND UNDER SECTION 128, 194C, 177, 124, 194D OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, ALL FURTHER PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THE
SAID ORDER IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 7 AND
9 TO 14 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101
CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.90/2024 pending on the file of learned Prl. Senior Judge and CJM, Haveri registered by Haveri Town police station, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129 and 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to 14.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent- State.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 20.03.2024 between 11.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., on Haveri-Ranebennur road near KEB Circle, the accused persons were about to start a bike rally without permission. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged the complaint to the Haveri Town police station and the police registered the case in Crime No.54/2024 for the offences -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition.
4. Heard Sri Venkatarao N. Deshmukh for Sri. Arvind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ashok T. Kattimani, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the complaint is misconceived and the alleged offences under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC are non cognizable one. Under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the police have no authority to investigate the crime and the police have not complied with mandatory requirements of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. It is contended that when the officer-in-charge of police station receives an information regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to the magistrate.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR
6. It is contended that as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such case or to commit such case for trial. Whereas, in the instant case, there is no iota of evidence to show that the above requirements are complied with in the present case. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.
7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that the respondent-State had appointed observers and after having come to know that the accused persons violated the code of conduct of Election Commission, the complaint was registered against the accused persons. He further contended that after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against all 80 persons. Thus, the petitioners cannot contend that the entire proceedings are illegal and such proceedings cannot be quashed. Thus, learned Addl. Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the petition.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR
8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offences under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of Representation of the People Act and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are non-cognizable offences and when the report is received by the SHO of the police station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory requirement of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
155.(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) 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.
9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it is the duty of the police officer to enter the substance of information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the jurisdictional magistrate is required to pass an -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR order permitting the police officer to investigate the case as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, unless the police officer is permitted by the Magistrate in an order to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the police officer does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet.
10. This Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630, considering non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., has held as under:
"20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant."
11. In view of the mandatory requirements stated in Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the ratio laid down in the case stated supra, the SHO of a police station has no authority unless the jurisdictional Magistrate permits him for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. Whereas, in the instant case, the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR learned Magistrate has passed an order dated 20.03.2024, which reads as under:-
ORDER Acting U/Sec.155 of Cr.P.C. permission is granted to SHO to investigate in NCR No.11/2024 in accordance with law.
But, this Court in catena of decisions has held that the said order passed by learned Magistrate based on the requisition submitted by the police officer, is not a judicious order, and there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate in permitting the police officer to take up the investigation for a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the SHO of a police station if received a complaint from the PSI and in turn, the SHO has to submit a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of the Representation of the People Act and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129 and 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are non-cognizable offences.
12. It shows that the respondent police had no authority to investigate the matter. Hence, this Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR Crl.P.No.102589/2025 and Crl.P.No.103064/2025 quashed the proceedings initiated against accused Nos.1 and 8. Thus, the allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 8 and these petitioners are one and the same and thus on the ground of parity also, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, qua accused Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to 14 requires to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court passes the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners accused Nos.2 to 7 and 9 to 14 in C.C.No.90/2024 pending on the file of learned Prl. Senior Judge and CJM, Haveri registered by Haveri Town police station, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of the Representation of the People Act and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are quashed, insofar as petitioners are concerned.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6101 CRL.P No. 100199 of 2026 HC-KAR
iii) Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN/-
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3