Allowed¶68

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025CRL.P/12840/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.; Section 79 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (exploitation of child employee); Section 3, Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986; sitting MLA of Navalgund; Special Court for sitting/former MPs and MLAs (42nd ACMM), Bengaluru; Navalgund Police Station FIR Crime No.79/2023; C.C.No.4135/2024; order dated 04.10.2024 set aside; petitioner discharged; Karnataka High Court; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; decided 11 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-F) in C.C.No.4135/2024 set aside; discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. allowed and petitioner discharged from the offences alleged against him. ¶68

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.4135/2024 (arising out of Navalgund Police Station FIR Crime No.79/2023 for offence under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015), pending before the XLII ACMM (Special Court for MPs/MLAs) at Bengaluru, ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court had come to a categorical conclusion that Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and the petitioner cannot be incriminated for the said offence.

¶59

Key takeaways

The Trial Court fell in error in holding that the ingredients of Section 3 of the 1986 Act were applicable: involvement in a 'process' presupposes employment, a precondition the Trial Court had already found in favour of the petitioner while holding Section 79 of the Act inapplicable.ratio¶60
The impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-F) passed in C.C.No.4135/2024 is erroneous and illegal and deserves to be set aside; the petitioner's discharge application deserves to be allowed.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (filed under Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.4135/2024 (Navalgund Police Station FIR Crime No.79/2023) under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the XLII ACMM, Special Court for sitting and former MPs/MLAs, Bengaluru. The Trial Court, by order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-F), rejected the discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. even while categorically holding that Section 79 JJ Act was not applicable, and instead proceeded on Section 3 of the Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Held: involvement in a 'process' under Section 3 presupposes employment, a precondition the Trial Court itself had found absent; the impugned order was therefore erroneous and illegal. Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner discharged.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12840 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NINGARADDI HANAMARADDI KONARADDI, S/O HANAMARADDI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O CHILAKAWAD, NAVALGUND, DHARWAD - 582 208. SITTING MLA OF NAVALGUND.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ADITYA D, ADVOCATE AND SRI. HITESH GOWDA B, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BY NAVALGUND POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

NAGARAJ

¶18

S/O GANESHAPPA KOBALLI

¶19

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS FST OFFICER AT NO.69, NAVALGUND ASSEMBLY, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER - HESCOM NAVANAGAR, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 025.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.N. NAGESHWARAPPA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 - NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.4135/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLII ACMM (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPS/MLAS, TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) AT BENGALURU (42ND ACMM) (IN NAVALGUND POLICE STATION FIR CR.NO.79/2023) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79 OF J.J. (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following relief:

¶30

To quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner / accused in C.C.No.4135/2024 pending on the file of XLII ACMM (Special Court for trial of cases against sitting as well as former MPs / MLAs, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) at Bengaluru (42^nd ACMM) (in Navalgund Police Station FIR Crime No.79/2023) registered for the offences punishable under Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

learned Additional SPP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would invited my attention to the impugned FIR in order to point out that though in the first instance, offences punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) were invoked as against the petitioner – accused and subsequently, cognizance was taken only in relation to Section 79 of the said Act and was pending in the impugned C.C.No.4135/2024. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking discharge, which was rejected by the Trail Court despite coming to the conclusion that Section 79 of Act was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In this context, it is submitted that the Trial Court came to the erroneous conclusion that the offences under Section 3 of the Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1986 Act' for short) were applicable though the ingredients of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the said provision were not attracted to the facts of the instant case.

¶40

Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the 1^st

¶41

respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to the dismissed.

¶42

Before adverting to rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; so also, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, which are as under:

¶43

79 . Exploitation of a child employee

¶44

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees.

¶45

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the term "employment" shall also include selling goods and services, and entertainment in public places for economic gain.

¶46

3 . Prohibition of employment of children in any occupations and processes .—(1) No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any occupation or process.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply where the child, —

¶50

(a) helps his family or family enterprise, which is other than any hazardous occupations or processes set forth in the Schedule, after his school hours or during vacations;

¶51

(b) works as an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry, including advertisement, films, television serials or any such other entertainment or sports activities except the circus, subject to such conditions and safely measures, as may be prescribed:

¶52

Provided that no such work under this clause shall effect the school education of the Child.

¶53

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression,

¶54

(a) “family” in relation to a child, means his mother, father, brother, sister and father’s sister and brother and mother’s sister and brother;

¶55

(b) “family enterprises” means any work, profession, manufacture or business which is performed by the members of the family with the engagement of other persons;

¶56

(c) “artist” means a child who performs or practices any work as a hobby or profession directly involving him as an actor, singer, sports person or in such other activity as may be prescribed relating to the entertainment or sports activities falling under clause (b) of sub-section (2).

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

In this regard, a perusal of the impugned order would clearly indicate that the Trial Court has come to a categorical conclusion that Section 79 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and the petitioner cannot be incriminated for the said offences. Despite having come to the said conclusion, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the ingredients of Section 3 of 1986 Act were applicable which was not only contrary to the material on record but also the aforesaid provisions.

¶60

At paragraph-12 of the impugned order, the Trial Court holds that the petitioner cannot be discharged for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the 1986 Act on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the process, without appreciating that for the purpose of being involved in the process, the necessary precondition was that he should have been employed, which had been already held in favour of the petitioner by the trial court, while coming to the conclusion that Section 79 of the Act was not applicable to the petitioner. Having come to the said conclusion, the trial court clearly fell in error in holding that the petitioner cannot be discharged for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25486 CRL.P No. 12840 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

1986 Act. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 Annexure-F passed in C.C.No.4135/2024 is erroneous and illegal and the same deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for discharge deserves to be allowed.

¶64

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶67

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 04.10.2024 passed in C.C.No.4135/2024 by the trial court is hereby set aside.

¶68

(iii) The application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge is hereby allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the offences alleged against him.

¶69

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶70

SS/SRL

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Krishna Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Puneet S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Poorvika. M. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha Reddy G M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Himanshu Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar Prasad @ B R Bhaskar Prasad Vs State by Cottonepete Ps