Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagath Prakash Nadda vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
WP No. 22933 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22933 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O DR. NARAYAN LAL NADDA
VIJAYPUR VILLAGE, R.O.,
AUHAR, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA
BILASPUR DISTRICT
HIMACHAL PRADESH - 495 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHIGGAON POLICE STATION
Digitally signed HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205
by NAGAVENI
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 005.
2. SRI LAXMAN NANDI
S/O LANKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OFFICE OF
ASSISTANT HORTICULTURE OFFICE
SHIGGAON, HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893
WP No. 22933 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO-QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.51/2023
SHIGGAON POLICE STATION, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND C.J.M,
SHIGGAON, HAVERI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 171F, 171(C) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTION 123(2) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED, HOLDING THAT IT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, 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 registration of a crime in crime No.51 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 123(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and Sections 171C and 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).
2. Heard Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondents. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner at the relevant point in time was the National President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and sitting Member of Parliament from Bilaspur constituency in Himachal Pradesh. A crime comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent, a member of Flying Squad Team appointed for the purpose of parliamentary elections alleging that on 19.04.2023 he found the petitioner along with others formed a team and while speaking utters the words which according to the 2nd respondent/ complainant becomes an offence under Section 123(2) of the Act and Sections 171C and 171F of the IPC. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the statements that are allegedly made during a public rally will in no way become the ingredients of offences that are alleged. The offences that are alleged are all non-cognizable. On such non-cognizable offence, the procedure under Section 155(2) of the Cr.PC is not followed. He would submit that registration of crime be -4- NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 quashed on the aforesaid grounds. He would seek to place reliance upon an order passed by this Court on identical offences in Jagath Prakash Nadda Vs. State of Karnataka and another - Criminal Petition No.5488 of 2023 decided on 7th August 2023.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has in fact indulged in what can be called as ingredients of the offences so alleged. Therefore, investigation in the least should be permitted to be continued in the case at hand. It is always open for the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to him in law.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. On 01.05.2023, a complaint comes to be registered not of an incident that has happened on the previous day, but the incident that has happened 12days ago. The allegation is that the petitioner while speaking has uttered the following words: -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 "Karnataka me vikaski ganga behetihai, iseeliye, meikamalkenishana par vote mangneaaya hum, Karnataka me vikasjarirahe, nirantharchaltarahe, yehchunaav ka mudhahai, jo Pradaan Mantri Narendra Modi ka ashirvaadhai, us se kahe Karnataka vanchitna ho jaye, isiliye, meraaapsenivedanhaikiaapkokamal ko jithanahai, aur Karnataka kevikas ko aagebadanahai"
What the petitioner has uttered is that there is immense growth and development in Karnataka. He has come here to request the people of Karnataka to vote for Lotus symbol for the unrelenting development to continue. On the statement so made whether it would become the ingredients of the offences alleged is necessary to be noticed. Section 171C and F of the IPC that are invoked read as follows:
"171-C. 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).-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 (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.
171-F. 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."
Section 171F deals with punishment for bribery. It mandates that if any person uses undue influence at an election is said to be committing the offence of bribery. Bribery is defined under Section 171B of the IPC. It 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.-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 (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."
If the statement made by the petitioner is considered on the touchstone of Section 171B, what would unmistakably emerge is loosely laying the offence against the petitioner as the statements would not meet the ingredients of bribery even to its remotest sense.
8. The other offence that is alleged is under Section 171C of the IPC. Section 171C also punishes a person indulging in undue influence. It mandates that whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right commits undue influence. What the petitioner has projected is developments in the State of Karnataka have been good and to continue the said development, vote for the lotus symbol. It is ununderstandable as to how this would amount to undue influence, as is obtaining under sub-section (1) of Section 171C. Therefore, the offence is deliberately and -8- NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 wantonly laid against the petitioner. None of the IPC offences are thus allegeable against the petitioner.
9. The other offence is Section 123(2) of the Act. It reads as follows:
"123. Corrupt practices.--The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
... ... ...
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that--
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who--
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, -9- NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause;
(b) 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 clause."
This again deals with undue influence by direct or indirect interference on the part of the candidate or the agent. The reasons rendered for holding the offence under Section 171C to be loosely laid would subsume the subject crime for offence punishable under the Act. When the crime itself was not discernible from the facts obtaining in the case at hand, it becomes a bounden duty upon the Magistrate, who would grant permission for registration of crime for non-cognizable offence. It is time and again indicated that the Magistrate should not pass orders, which bear no application of mind. The requisition in the case at hand was sent to the learned Magistrate and the requisition is answered "permitted". The Magistrates at time and again are indulging in frolicsome acts of granting permission without application of mind. If the crime so sought to be registered did not even meet its ingredients even in the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 remotest sense, blanket permissions that are granted blindfolded by the learned Magistrates should stop and stop forthwith, as they unnecessarily contribute docket explosion of this Court. Therefore, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner on such reckless registration of crime would by itself 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) SCC 335 wherein at para 102 it is held as follows:-
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV 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
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 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 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
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023 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. The first 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.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44893 WP No. 22933 of 2023
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.51 of 2023 of Shiggaon Police Station and pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Shiggaon, Haveri District stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT:SS