Allowed

Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda. S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2023CRL.P/6812/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 171-B, 171-E, and 188. Relying on two prior judgments that quashed similar proceedings due to legal jurisdictional errors and procedural lapses, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the trial. The court held that further analysis was unnecessary as the legal position was already settled.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.7453/2013 (Cr.No.100/2013, dated 22.04.2013) against the petitioner for offences under IPC Sections 171B, 171E & 188 read with Section 34 quashed.

Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda. S Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32382 CRL.P No. 6812 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6812 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHASHIKALA KRISHNEGOWDA .S. W/O KRISHNEGOWDA B., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO 1628, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK, NEAR EAST WEST SCHOOL, RAJAJINAGAR 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶13

Date: 2023.09.11 15:43:25 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SUBHRAMANYA NAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE -03, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

B.K. JAYARAM S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, MCC FLYING SQUAD, EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, 3-B TEAM, MALLESHWARAM ASSEMBLY, CONSTITUENCY – 157, BANGALORE-560003.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. YASHODHA K.P., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7453/2013 REGISTERED BY THE SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU CITY IN CR.NO.100/2013 DATED 22.04.2013 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.171-B,171-E AND 188 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:32382 CRL.P No. 6812 of 2023

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel Shri Shanthi Bhushan H. appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP Smt. Yashodha K.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 – State.

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.7453/2013 registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City in Crime No.100/2013, dated 22.04.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 171B, 171E & 188 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that qua the other accused, this Court has already quashed the proceedings arising out of the very same crime. This Court in the case of Dr. C.N.

¶24

Ashwathnarayan S/o. T.K. Narayanappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32382 CRL.P No. 6812 of 2023

¶26

No.9407/2017, disposed off on 24^th April 2018, wherein it

¶27

is held as under:

¶28

“Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7453/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E) and 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by second respondent herein.

¶29

2. The gist of prosecution case is; second respondent was on election duty in Malleshwaram Constituency No.157 as MCC Flying Squad–Executive Magistrate and while discharging his duties on 21.04.2014, he received information that accused No.1, who is a yoga guru, had arranged a meeting at Kranthiveera Sangollirayann Park falling within the jurisdiction of Subramanya Nagar Police Station and a meeting was being held under the leadership of said yoga guru and in that meeting, petitioner, who was a candidate at Malleshwaram Vidhana Sabha Constituency along with local CorporatorSmt.Shashikala Krishnegowda was participating in the said meeting held by yoga guru Sri.Subhash and after the meeting, breakfast had been arranged without obtaining permission from the Election Officer and on reaching the venue, he found such meeting being held. Hence, alleging that accused had violated election rules, a complaint came to be lodged, which was registered in Cr.No.100/2013 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E) and 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:32382 CRL.P No. 6812 of 2023

¶32

Hence, petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of same and praying for quashing of said proceedings.

¶33

3. Heard Sri.Shanthi Bhushan.H, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶34

4. As could be seen from the case records, offences alleged against petitioner are punishable under Sections 171(B) and 171(E), which are cognizable offences and as such, prior to registration of FIR, jurisdictional police ought to have obtained permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, which is conspicuously absent in the instant case. Insofar as, offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC, the bar contained in Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would come into play namely, prosecution can be initiated for said offence only by a competent officer by filing a complaint before the Court as otherwise the Court before whom proceedings is continued on the basis of police report, would not be empowered to take cognizance of said offence.

¶35

5. In the instant case, prosecution has been initiated for the offence committed under Section 188 of IPC on the basis of a police report and not on the basis of complaint lodged in writing by the competent officer, who is empowered to do so. In that view of the matter, proceedings initiated against petitioner if allowed to be continued and is directed to undergo the ordeal of trial, it would be an abuse of process of law.”

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32382 CRL.P No. 6812 of 2023

¶37

Insofar as the other accused is concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings in the case of Subhash Vs. the State of Karanataka and another in Crl.P. No.9234/2017, disposed off on 22^nd June 2018, wherein it is held as under:

¶38

“2. Petitioner is arrayed as accused no.2 in C.C.No.7453/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. CMM Court, Bangalore registered for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E), 188 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of the final report submitted by the 2^nd respondent under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

¶39

3. This Court had an occasion to deal with the same matter so far as accused no.1 is concerned. Ultimately, after a reasoned order, this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused no.1. The same has to be made applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned.

¶40

4. This Court has categorically observed that under Sections 171B and 171E they are non-cognizable offences and so far as offence under Section 188 IPC the Police have no jurisdiction to investigate in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, considering the said legal lacunae in the case, the Court has quashed the proceedings against accused no.1.

¶41

Under the above said circumstances, the same order holds good so far as the petitioner is concerned.”

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32382 CRL.P No. 6812 of 2023

¶43

5. In the light of the aforesaid orders answering

¶44

the issue that is called in question in the case at hand, the further consideration or deeper dwelling in the matter would become unnecessary.

¶45

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.7453/2013 registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City in Crime No.100/2013, dated 22.04.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 171B, 171E & 188 read with Section 34 of the IPC stand quashed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Vnp*/ct:bck List No.: 19 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda. S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Yankappa Baraker Vs Arati W/O Santosh Baraker

Basavantappa S/O Andappa Halakeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashanka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vinay Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Priyank M Kharge Vs State of Karnataka