ANIL NINGAPPA HALLAKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.

(BY SRI B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4210/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE (ACJM 42) XLII ADDL,.CJM BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 127-A OF RP ACT, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1. 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 - accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.4210/2024, pending before the (ACJM-42) – XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1950.

Heard Sri Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 10089 of 2025 HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis is answered by this Court in the case of PUTTASIDDASETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER IN CRL.P.NO.6396/2022, DISPOSED ON

09.06.2023. Therefore, he prays this Court to grant the same relief to the petitioner in the subject petition.

This Court in Crl.P.No.6396/2022, disposed on

09.06.2023, has held as follows: “2. The allegation against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act'). Section 127A of the Act reads as follows: "Section 127A. Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc.— 1[Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc. (1) No person shall print or publish or cause to be printed or published, any election pamphlet or poster which does not bear on its fact the names and addresses of the printer and the publisher thereof. (2) No person shall print or cause to be printed any election pamphlet or poster— (a) unless a declaration as to the identity of the publisher thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom he is personally known, is delivered by him to the printer in duplicate; and (b) unless, within a reasonable time after the printing of the document, one copy of the declaration is sent by the printer, together with one copy of the document. (i) where it is printed in the capital of the State, to the Chief Electoral Officer; and (ii) in any other case, to the district magistrate of the district in which it is printed. (3) For the purposes of this section,— (a) any process for multiplying copies of a document, other than copying it by hand, shall - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 10089 of 2025 HC-KAR be deemed to be printing and the expression “printer” shall be construed accordingly; and (b) “election pamphlet or poster” means any printed pamphlet, hand-bill or other document distributed for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or group of candidates or any placard or poster having reference to an election, but does not include any hand-bill, placard or poster merely announcing the date, time, place and other particulars of an election meeting or routine instructions to election agents or workers. (4) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.]" imperative. learned Magistrate would be

3. It is not in dispute that Section 127A of the Act is a non-cognizable offence, and for a non-cognizable offence, if a crime has to be registered, the permission of The permission in the case at hand is sought by way of a requisition by the Station House Officer. The requisition is endorsed by a signature of the learned Magistrate it is neither perused, permitted, nor permitted to register an FIR. Such bald, vague, and callous signatures being put on the requisitions have become the subject matter of several proceedings before this Court. This Co-ordinate the case of VAGGEPPA Bench of GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2019 reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2708 : ILR 2020 Kar 630, wherein, it has held as follows: this Court "2. follows:- The PSI Kagwad One Mr. H.N. police Shirahatti, station filed a complaint before the SHO of Kagwad Police station stating that on 23.09.2019 at about 18.15 hours, when he was in the police station he received credible information, that within the limits of Mole Village near Laxmi Temple, some persons are playing gambling called “Andar Baahar” for their personal benefit, contrary to law and illegally. Thereafter, he informed the same to Dy. S.P. Athani and CPI Athani, telephonically and as per their instructions and direction, himself along with staff proceeded to the said spot. They reached the spot at 19.30 hours and they stood little away and watched and found that certain persons were saying Yakka means Rs.100/- etc. and they conducted raid and caught hold 13 persons and recovered cash of Rs.10,250/-. On the basis of the complaint, the SHO registered Crime No 123/2019 for 4 - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 10089 of 2025 HC-KAR offence under Section 87 of K.P. Act. Subsequently, after investigation, a charge sheet was petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P.Act. filed against Code

1973. stated received The the officer crime. non-cognizable investigate information offence, petitioner misconceived, in-charge of non-cognizable in a book station said officer Therefore, police requirement

3. complaint offence Criminal Procedure have no authority further submitted complied with mandatory 155 of Cr.P.C. When police commission Magistrate. 155 order of a Magistrate having power petitioner requirement speaking permitting Therefore, petitioner who charge sheet are liable to be quashed. alleged police It Section regarding to be maintained by 5 officer without The said mandatory There Magistrate investigation. further complied police proceedings with. jurisdictional is arrayed as accused No.4 of Cr.P.C. mandates Subsection police informant non-cognizable stated trial. investigate evidence initiated Further, commit Section against (2) a

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the orders of this Court passed in several cases in support of his submissions.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the jurisdictional Magistrate has permitted the concerned police to take up investigation and therefore, there is compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non-cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO of Police Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with the procedure for investigation and for taking cognizance of non- cognizable offence reads as follows:— - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27288 CRL.P No. 10089 of 2025 HC-KAR

155. Information as investigation of such cases. to non-cognizable cases and (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

In the light of the issue standing covered by the afore- quoted judgment rendered by this Court and several other benches and for the reasons recorded therein, the subject petition also stands disposed, in the very same terms that is ordered in the afore-quoted judgment.