IVAN NIGLI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SURYA MUKUNDARAJ L, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH S J PARK POLICE STATION, J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5901 CRL.P No. 914 of 2026 HC-KAR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR SJ PARK POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGAURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.26057/2023 INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT S.J PARK POLICE, BANGALORE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLVIII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 103 OF KP ACT, AND SEC. 188 OF IPC . THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5901 CRL.P No. 914 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Surya Mukundaraj L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the following prayer: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash entire proceedings as against petitioner in C.C.No.26057/2023 initiated by the 1st respondent S J Park Police, Bangalore pending before the Hon'ble XLVIII Addl Chief Judicial MAgistrate Bengaluru City for offences punishable under Section 103 of Karnataka Police Act and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and grant reliefs to the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7228 of 2023 (482) connected with W.P.No.14239 of 2023 (GM-RES) disposed on 27.02.2024, wherein it has been held as follows: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5901 CRL.P No. 914 of 2026 HC-KAR " ORDER “The these cases fact matrix of both substantially similar and they arise from the very same complaint as well wherein violation of the provisions of Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been alleged. Cognizance having been taken by the learned Judge of the Court below, process has been issued to the accused/petitioners. That is how they are before this court seeking quashment of the same.

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.

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

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5901 CRL.P No. 914 of 2026 HC-KAR to grant relief to the petitioners, broadly agreeing with the submission made on their behalf. Similar question had cropped up before the Coordinate Bench Rajashekharananda Swamiji supra. A paragraphs 8 & 10 of the judgement, it is observed as under: “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.

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. Hemareddy1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “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 subsection, 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.” (Emphasis supplied)” The above observations come to the aid of petitioners. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5901 CRL.P No. 914 of 2026 HC-KAR

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. the above, In view of 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. “

4. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would not dispute the aforesaid order and the fact that it covers the case at hand on all its fours.

5. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition is liable to be disposed on the same terms.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings pending C.C.No.26057/2023 before the XLVIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5901 CRL.P No. 914 of 2026 HC-KAR Bengaluru, registered offences punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 against the petitioner, stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103