High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for alleged election offences involving bursting of crackers. The court found that such acts simpliciter do not constitute offences under IPC sections 286 or 143.
Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.1/2024 qua the petitioner quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4728 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI K C VEERENDRA S/O LATE K CHANNABASSAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: MLA - CHITRA DURGA, R/AT: VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE RATHANA NILAYA OPP. OLD TOWN, CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DIST. - 577 522
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. SHARATH S. DODWAD, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.0082/2023 OF CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S., CONGNIZANCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN PURSUANT SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 268, 286 AND 341 R/W 49 OF IPC, SEC. 123(2) AND 130 OF R.P. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1/2024 pending before the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., at Chitradurga arising out of Crime No.82/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 268, 286 and 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 123(2) and 130 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act for short).
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
and Sri Sharath S. Dodwad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
A complaint comes to be registered on 08.05.2023 by the 2nd respondent, who was appointed then as a Member of Flying Squad during the conduct of elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, 2023. The allegation is that on 07.05.2023, the complainant found that accused No.1/petitioner along with 200 others, had assembled near Ummar Circle, Gopalpur Road of Chitradurga Town and were engaging in election campaign and promotional activity of a particular party. At that point in time, they were found to have been bursting crackers, which according to the complainant was hazardous to the environment. Alleging violation of model code of conduct, the crime comes to be registered. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and several others. Filing of the charge sheet and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
Prosecutor would seek to defend the action of filing of the charge sheet, but would admit that the order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court, bears no application of mind and would leave the decision to the hands of this Court.
2nd respondent / complainant would seek to refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the police after investigation have filed the charge sheet and therefore, the matter must be permitted to
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
be tried. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in the full-blown trial.
by the 2nd respondent, as found in column No.10, reads as follows:
"¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.05.2023 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 00.45 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ °Tv zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ §ÄqÉÃ£ï ¸Á¨ï DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ಉ�ಾ�ಾ�ಸಕರು, ¨Á®QAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀzÀ« PÁ¯ÉÃeï, avÀæzÀÄUÀð E°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢:03.04.2023 jAzÀ avÀæzÀÄUÀð £ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÀ.¸À.¨Á-3 gÉÃAeï £À ºÉZÀÄѪÀj J¥sï.J¸ï.n �ೆ�ೖ�ಂ� �ಾ��� nÃA D¦ü¸Àgï DV PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è, ZÀgÀuï PÀĪÀiÁgï ¹¦¹-2684 §qÁªÀuÉ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ PÁ£Àì÷Ö§¯ï ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀĤÃvï «rAiÉÆà UÁæ¥Ágï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.05.2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ gÁwæ ¥Á½AiÀÄ 10.00 jAzÀ ¨É½UÉÎ 06.00 gÀªÀgÉUÉ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉëĹzÀÄÝ, £ÁªÀÅ gÁwæ ¢:08.05.2023 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.00 ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉÆgÀ¥ÉÃmÉ ºÀwÛgÀ UÀ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ 12.05 JJAUÉ UÉÆÃ¥Á®¥ÀÄgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ, GªÀÄägï ¸ÀPÀð¯ï ºÀwÛgÀ, PÁAUÉæ¸ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀiÁzÀ «gÉÃAzÀæ@¥À¦à ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ 200 PÀÆÌ ºÉZÀÄÑ d£ÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀPÀëzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr CªÀ¢ü «ÄÃj ¢:08.05.2023 ರಂದು �ಾ�� 12.05
ರ ಸಮಯದವ�ೆ�ೆ ಚು�ಾವ�ೆ ಪ� ಾರ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ EzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ NqÁlPÉÌ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤Ãr ºÁUÀÆ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¥ÀæZÁgÀzÀ°è ¥Àj¸ÀgÀPÉÌ ºÁ¤PÁgÀPÀªÁUÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¥ÀmÁQUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹r¹ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À DzÉñÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¥ÀæZÁgÀPÁÌV PÉJ-59-J£ï-0003 £Éà ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, DzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ 2023 gÀ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ JAvÁ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in
Column No.17 reads as follows:
"PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À
¢£ÁAPÀ:08-05-2023 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12-00 JJA UÀAmÉUÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2, 3, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀA:99 avÀæzÀÄUÀð £ÀUÀgÀzÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ ¸ÁªÀæwðPÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ
2023 ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÀ¸Á¨Á-3 gÉÃAeï £À �ೆ�ೖ�ಂ� �ಾ��� nà D¦üøÀgï DV PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ avÀæzÀÄUÀð mË£ï UÉÆÃ¥Á®¥ÀÄgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ GªÀÄgï ¸ÀPÀð¯ï §½ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ PÁ®A £ÀA§gï 12 gÀ°è PÀAqÀ J-1 jAzÀ J-11 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉJ-59 J£ï-0003 £Éà ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è §AzÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ eÁjAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CPÀæªÀĪÁV UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀ¢ü «ÄÃj gÁwæ 12-05 ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀªÀgÉUÉ d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤V ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ¸ÀAZÁgÀPÉÌ CqÀZÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß GAlÄ ªÀiÁr ¥ÀmÁQUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹r¹ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ NqÁqÀPÉÌ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼À PÀ®A:143, 147, 286, 268 gÉ/« 149 L¦¹ ºÁUÀÆ 127127(J) Dgï ¦ DPïÖ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ".
10. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under
Sections 286 and 268 of the IPC. They read as follows:
“286. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance.— Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person,
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
“ 268. Public nuisance.— A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.”
Section 286 of the IPC punishes whoever with any explosive substance acts rashly and negligently to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury. The allegation is that they were bursting crackers during an election campaign. There is no indication of any hurt that was likely to be caused. Now it becomes apposite to refer to two judgments rendered by the High Court of Madras on the issue. The Madras High Court in the case of MURUGAN AND OTHERS v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS – Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10805 of 2024 , has held as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
"4. The allegation is that they carried party flag, burst crackers and were proceeding in two wheeler and thereby, violated the Election Code of Conduct. However, the case was registered for the offences under Section 143, 286 of I.P.C and Section 4(A)(1a) and 4B of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of disfigurement) 1959. The allegation found in the F.I.R and the Sections under which the case registered against them does not correlate. The gathering of more than five persons for the purpose of election campaign and taking out procession will not attract offence under Section 143 of I.P.C. Likewise, Section 286 of I.P.C relates to Negligent conduct with respect of explosive substances. Though, in the F.I.R it is stated about bursting of crackers, nothing indicated in the complaint that such bursting of crackers was done negligently and likely to endanger the human life or likely to cause hurt. Hence, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act also does not get attracted. Therefore, it is a fit case to be quashed since there is no commission of offence as alleged in the complaint.”
In K.KRISHNASAMY v. STATE – 2019 SCC OnLine Mad
12454 the Madras High Court has held as follows:
“ 5. As regards Section 171(H) IPC, the same will stand attracted only if the voters are bribed and not for bursting crackers. Coming to Section 286 IPC, bursting of crackers, simpliciter is not an offence. It should be done so rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to others. There is absolutely no iota of material to show that the accused were bursting crackers, in such a manner so as to endanger the life of any person or to cause hurt to anyone so as to fall within the parameters of Section 286 IPC.”
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
The High Court of Madras holds that bursting of crackers during election cannot become an offence under Section 286 of the IPC. I am in respectful agreement with the judgments rendered by the High Court of Madras as bursting of crackers simpliciter cannot amount to an offence under Section 286 of the IPC. Therefore, the said charge is loosely laid against the petitioner.
YEDIYURAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – (2021) 1 AIR
Kant R. 754 , has held as follows:
“8.24. An action on a complaint as regards violation of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, i.e., on account of a corrupt practice being committed is limited to the candidate, resulting in his
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
disqualification or voiding of his/her result in the event of such candidate having returned successfully.
8.25. An action for violation of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, can only be initiated against the candidate seeking for his/her disqualification and voiding of his/her result in the event of such candidate having returned successfully, hence no action can be taken against the agent or a person authorised by him for such corrupt practice in terms of section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
8.26. Violation of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 in the present scheme of the legislation would amount to corrupt practice, providing a cause of action for filing of an election petition under Section 81 read with Section 100 and 101 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; there can be penal action initiated by way of criminal prosecution.
8.27. For initiation of Criminal prosecution, the violation complained of should come within the ambit of Chapter III part VII of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, in the present case at the most the allegations can be said to come under section 125 thereof, which require the establishment of promotion of enmity or hatred as a sine qua non , which has not been so done. ”
Since none of the offences are met in the case at hand, considering the submissions with regard to the manner in which the cognizance is taken becomes unnecessary.
NC: 2024:KHC:44927 CRL.P No. 4728 of 2024
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bursting of crackers during an election campaign amounts to an offence under Section 286 IPC.
Whether actions violating Section 123 of the Representation of People Act can be initiated against agents or authorized persons criminally.
Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1/2024 ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MURUGAN AND OTHERS v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERSFollowed¶61
MURUGAN AND OTHERS v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10805 of 2024
K. KRISHNASAMY v. STATEFollowed¶65
K. KRISHNASAMY v. STATE, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 12454 · Who else cites this
B.S. YEDIYURAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKAFollowed¶71
B.S. YEDIYURAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2021) 1 AIR Kant R. 754 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI K C VEERENDRA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BUDEN SAAB
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
