Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6694 OF 2022 BETWEEN: LOKESH S/O LATE HARUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT R/AT NO.7, 4TH D CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE-79. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. TEJASWINI V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by PRASHANTH
NV 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Location: High BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P S Court of REPRESENTED BY SPPKarnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
2. RAMESH S B
S/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MCC MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT AEE BANGALORE JALAMADALI KAPILA BHAVANA, JAYANAGARA T BLOCK BANGALORE-41. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; -2- R2 - SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15542/2020 ON
THE FILE OF 39TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 171(b) IPC R/W SECTIONS 123(a), 1950, 1951, 1989 UNDER SECTION 1234 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT 1950. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.15542 of 2020 on the file of the learned XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 171(b) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') read with Section 123(A) of Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short, 'R.P Act'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
2. Heard Smt.Tejaswini V., learned counsel for
Sri.Shankarappa S., learned counsel for the petitioner and -3- Smt.Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Respondent No.2 though served with notice has remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that since the offence under Section 171(b) of IPC is a non-cognizable offence, mandatory requirements as provided under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC should have been followed. But in the present case, even though the requisition is submitted to the learned Magistrate, there is no speaking order permitting registration of the FIR and thereby there is violation of the -4- specific guidelines issued by this Court in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi V/s State of Karnataka1 and therefore prayed for quashing criminal proceedings.
5. Learned HCGP has fairly concedes to the fact that
there is non-compliance of guidelines issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as referred to above and also the legal requirement of section 155 (2) CR.P.C.
6. On Perusal of the materials on record, a requisition
dated 03.12.2019 was submitted by the respondent police to the learned Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner is collecting the Voters' Identity Cards from the general public to confirm that they are the voters of Mahalakshmi Layout, Vidhanasabha Legislative Assembly Constituency and was trying to guide them to vote to a particular person, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 171(b) of IPC and under Section 123(A) of R.P Act.
7. Annexure-C is the Requisition submitted by the
respondent police before the learned Magistrate, seeking permission to register the FIR and to undertake investigation. ILR 2020 Kar 630 -5- The learned Magistrate has endorsed 'permitted' on the same day. Based on the same, the FIR came to be registered.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vaggeppa (supra), dealt with the procedure that is being adopted by the police officials, and the Trial Court and laid down specific
guidelines to be followed while seeking permission to register
the FIR and to investigate into the non-cognizable offences in the light of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.PC and held in para- 20 as under: "20-Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or
muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order
the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and
(2) of Cr.PC and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an
order in the eyes of law and as mandated under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C -6- ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it
before him with a separate order sheet. No order
should be passed on the requisition itself. The said
order sheet should be continued for further
proceedings in the case. iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her Judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to -7- investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant" (emphasis supplied)
9. The position of law as laid down by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Vaggeppa (supra) is very well settled. The requirement of law under Section 155 (1) and (2) of Cr.PC is violated by adopting a short-cut method of submitting the requisition to the learned Magistrate who endorses on the requisition itself as 'permitted' without there being any application of mind.
10. In view of the above, I am of opinion that the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in
C.C.No.15542 of 2020, pending on the file of the learned XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the -8- offence punishable under Section 171(b) of IPC read with Section 123(A) of R.P Act, is hereby quashed against the petitioner. In view of disposal of main petition, pending I.A.No.1 of 2022 also stands disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6