GM- RES) between SRI. RAJASHEKHARANANDA SWAMIJI & Anr. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off on

1. SHRI. RAMALINGAREDDY, MLA BTM VIDHANA SABHA CONSTITUENCY, BANGALORE CITY, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 455/7, 15TH CROSS ROAD, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 027.

2. SHRI. N.A. HARIS, MLA SHANTHINAGAR, VIDHANA SABHA CONSTITUENCY, BANGALORE CITY, S/O MOHAMMED N.A, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NALAPAD HOUSE, NO.23 1ST CROSS ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 025.

3. SHRI. MOHAMMED HARIS NALAPAD, PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA PRADESH, YOUTH CONGRESS, BANGALORE CITY, S/O N.A. HARIS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NALAPAD HOUSE, NO.23, 1ST CROSS ROAD, ASHOKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 025. NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42807 CRL.P No. 10208 of 2024

4. SOWMYA REDDY, MLA JAYANAGAR VIDHANA SABHA CONSTITUENCY, BANGALORE CITY, D/O SHRI. RAMALINGAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 455/7, 15TH CROSS ROAD, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 027. (BY SRI. SUMATHI PAULIN M, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. SHRI. A. RAJU, POLICE INSPECTOR, WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 027, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.25189/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 42ND A.C.M.M BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 188, 290 OF IPC AND SEC.103 OF IPC FILED BY RESPONDENT WILSON GARDEN POLICE. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42807 CRL.P No. 10208 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: "i. to quash the entire proceedings in CC. No.25189/2024 pending on the file of 42nd ACMM, Bangalore against the petitioners for offences under Section 188 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 103 of the Indian Penal Code filed by respondent Wilson Garden Police ii. pass such other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Smt. Sumathi Pauline, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Jagadeesha B.N., learned Addl.SPP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel, Smt. Sumathi Pauline, 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 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42807 CRL.P No. 10208 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024 and that of this Court in Crl.P.No.7376/2022 dated 16.08.2022.

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: "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 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 to grant relief to the petitioners, broadly agreeing with the submission made on their behalf. Similar question had cropped up before the Coordinate Bench supra. A paragraphs 8 & 10 of the judgement, it is observed as under: in Rajashekharananda Swamiji - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42807 CRL.P No. 10208 of 2024 “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 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.” (Emphasis supplied)” The above observations come to the aid of petitioners.

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 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42807 CRL.P No. 10208 of 2024 learned VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed."

5. In the light of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and that of this Court and reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned proceedings pending C.C.No.25189/2024 pending before the 42nd ACMM, Bengaluru, stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK