Allowed¶66

Sri Byrathi Suresha (Suresha B S) v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2025WP/7403/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; taking of cognizance; non-application of mind; private complaint; PCR.No.9858/2024; CC.No.25189/2024; Sections 188 and 290 IPC; Section 103 Karnataka Police Act; parity with Coordinate Bench; Umesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka; W.P.No.24699/2024; Crl.P.No.12815/2024; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI; sitting MLA; Minister; Special Court for MPs/MLAs; XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; Wilson Garden Police Station; Article 226; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in CC.No.25189/2024, registered pursuant to the private complaint dated 22.06.2022 in PCR.No.9858/2024, pending on the file of the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as well as former MPs./MLAs.), Bengaluru. ¶66

Sri Byrathi Suresha (Suresha B S) Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in CC.No.25189/2024, arising out of a private complaint dated 22.06.2022 (PCR.No.9858/2024) for offences under Sections 188 and 290 IPC r/w Section 103 Karnataka Police Act, should be quashed as against the petitioner (accused No.18), the petitioner contending non-application of mind in the taking of cognizance. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The proceedings in CC.No.25189/2024, registered pursuant to the private complaint dated 22.06.2022 in PCR.No.9858/2024, for offences under Sections 188 and 290 IPC and Section 103 Karnataka Police Act, on the file of the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court), Bengaluru, are quashed.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

This Court is in agreement with the contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner; the issue having already been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, with relief of quashment granted in similar cases, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief on parity.

¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), W.P. No. 7403 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided 17.03.2025 — Quashment of criminal proceedings; taking of cognizance. Petitioner, a sitting MLA (Hebbala) and Minister in the Government of Karnataka, figured as accused No.18 in CC.No.25189/2024, registered on a private complaint dated 22.06.2022 (PCR.No.9858/2024) for offences under Sections 188 and 290, IPC 1860 r/w Section 103, Karnataka Police Act 1961, before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for sitting/former MPs and MLAs), Bengaluru. Counsel contended the order taking cognizance was a classic example of non-application of mind, relying on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015)4 SCC 609 and Coordinate Bench decisions. The Court, agreeing with the contention and noting the issue stood covered by Coordinate Bench rulings granting quashment in similar cases (Umesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No.7228/2023 c/w W.P.No.14239/2023; W.P.No.24699/2024; Crl.P.No.12815/2024), held the petitioner entitled to similar relief on parity and quashed the proceedings. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.7403 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI BYRATHI SURESHA (SURESHA B.S.) S/O.LATE B.M.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.174, BYRATHI BENGALURU NORTH DR.SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 077

¶7

MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MLA), HEBBALLA CONSTITUENCY

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROESECUTOR THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

SRI A.RAJU POLICE SUB INSPECTOR WILSON GADEN POLICE STATION KARNATAKA-560 051

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.25189/2024 REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 22.06.2022 BEARING PCR.NO.9858/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶20

SECTIONS 188 AND 290 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 READ WITH SECTION 103 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1961 INSOFAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, PENDING ON FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SPECIAL COURT TO TRY CASES AGAINST SITING AS WELL AS FORMER MPS. AND MLA, TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, who is accused No.18 is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.25189/2024 registered pursuant to the Private Complaint dated 22.06.2022 in PCR.No.9858/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1961 on the file of XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as well as former MPs./MLAs. triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka), Bengaluru.

¶24

The petitioner contested the Karnataka Legislative

¶25

Assembly Election held in May, 2023. He was successful in

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶28

the election and presently, he is a Minister in the Government of Karnataka.

¶29

It is the vehement contention of Sri Shathabish Shivanna, learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order taking cognizance is a classic example of non-application of mind. He has referred to the word 'cognizance' having not been defined in Cr.PC. and he contends that it is an application of judicial mind to an alleged commission of offence. He further contends that while taking cognizance of an offence, the Court will have to apply its judicial mind and thereafter, take cognizance and then issue process/notice to the accused. He has relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI reported in (2015)4 SCC 609 and the Coordinate Bench

¶30

of this Court in the case of Umesh Shetty v. State of

¶31

Karnataka in Crl.P.No.7228/2023 C/w.

¶32

WP.No.14239/2023 , whereby this Court in similar

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶35

circumstances dealing with similar quashment of proceedings and non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence, issuance of process to the accused and allowed the petition by quashing the proceedings of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and in another judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.12815/2024 (decided on 28.11.2024) and WP.No.24699/2024 (decided on 12.09.2024), the Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings of the learned Magistrate.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶37

that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.24699/2024 stated supra, wherein this Court has held as follows:

¶38

"3. Learned counsel, Sri. Bipin Hegde, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7228/2023 c/w W.P.No.14239/2023 dated

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶41

27.02.2024 and that of this Court in Crl.P.No.7376/2022 dated 16.08.2022.

¶42

4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has quashed the proceedings on identical offences against the other accused, wherein it has held as follows:

¶43

"2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Aruna Shyam appearing for the petitioners submits that the cognizance of the offence could not have been taken by the court below, the private complaint filed u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the subject offence itself being incompetent. In support of this, he banks upon of a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.13328/2018 (GM-RES) between SRI. RAJASHEKHARANANDA SWAMIJI AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off on 18.6.2021. He further submits that the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having been held mandatory by the Apex Court in SALONI ARORA V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2017) 3 SCC 286, the quashment has to be granted by this court.

¶44

3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent opposes the petitions contending that there can be delegation of power to

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶47

lodge the complaint and therefore, in such an event, the author who promulgated the order in question need not go before the court to complain. Even otherwise, according to him, the arguable infirmity not going to root of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as prayed for. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petitions.

¶48

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioners, broadly agreeing with the submission made on their behalf. Similar question had cropped up before the Coordinate Bench in Rajashekharananda Swamiji supra. A paragraphs 8 & 10 of the judgement, it is observed as under:

¶49

“8. Reading of the above provision makes it clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. In the case on hand, as per the complaint itself, prohibitory order under Section 144 of IPC was promulgated by the Commissioner of Police and not the complainant.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶52

10. Then the question is Annexures-A to D get vitiated only so far as the offence under Section 188 of IPC. In para 8 of the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶53

“8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.”

¶54

(Emphasis supplied)”

¶55

The above observations come to the aid of petitioners.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶58

5. The vehement submission of learned Addl. SPP that there can be delegation of “power to complain” in terms of promulgated order in question, is bit difficult to countenance in the absence of such delegation being demonstrated from the text of the said order itself. It has been a settled position of law vide In Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 SCC OnLine SC 45 that a delegate cannot further delegate: delegatus non potesta potestas delegare. Contra having not been shown, the contention of the kind cannot be countenanced.

¶59

In view of the above, these petitions being meritorious are allowed to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the court; the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.24636/2022 pending on the file of learned VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed."

¶60

Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents opposes the contentions so urged by learned counsel for petitioner and seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶62

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents and on perusal of the petition and the documents annexed thereto, this Court is in agreement with the contention put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner. Since the issue has already been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as stated supra and relief has been granted in favour of the petitioner for quashment of similar case in nature. Hence, the petitioner herein would also be entitled to the similar relief on parity.

¶63

In view of the above discussion and in the light of

¶64

the order rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court stated supra , I pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶67

(ii) The proceedings in CC.No.25189/2024

¶68

registered pursuant to the Private Complaint dated 22.06.2022 in PCR.No.9858/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10971 WP No. 7403 of 2025

¶70

290 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1961 on the file of XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as well as former MPs./MLAs. triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka), Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶71

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶72

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Byrathi Suresha (Suresha B S) v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Byrathi Suresha (Suresha B S) v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanaswamy M.V Vs Smt. Ashwini K .v

Mrs. R. Leelavathi Vs Mr. C.T. Nagaraja

Sri. Sanjeev Kumar.G Vs Smt. Anitha Kumari

Smt. Snehal Dure P Vs Sri Sachin S

Sri. Muthuraju Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Gangadharappa Vs Sri Ashwathappa