SRI B.G.GOVINDAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2. SRI A.PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL F.S.T KASABA 101 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MID-DAY MEALS TALUK PANCHAYAT HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI SHARATH S.DODWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA IN CR.NO.205 OF 2023 DATED 07.05.2023 AND FIR FILED BY THE HOSADURGA POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.205 OF 2023 DATED 07.05.2023 FOR ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCE U/S 171C, 171F OF IPC SEC. 14 OF THE CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT AND U/S 123(3B) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B. IN CRL.P NO. 10938/2023 BETWEEN: SRI B.G.GOVINDAPPA S/O GALI POOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, CANDIDATE OF HOSADURGA M.L.A ELECTION HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527 PRESENTLY MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 HOSADURGA CONSTITUENCY ...PETITIONER (BY SRI BALARAJ A. C., ADVOCATE) AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP HOSADURA POLICE HIRIYUR SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527.

2. SRI A.PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS F.S.T. OFFICER ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR MID-DAY MEALS PROGRAMME TALUK PANCHAYAT, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI SHARATH S. DODWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSADURGA IN CR.NO.206/2023 DATED 07.05.2023 AND FIR FILED BY HOSADURGA POLICE IN CR.NO.206/2023 DATED 07.05.2023 FOR ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCE P/U/S/ 14 OF CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT 1986 AND U/S.123(3B) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT 1951 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner in both these petitions is common. Therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this Common order.

2. In Crl.P.No.10876/2023, the petitioner seeks the following prayer: “(i) call for records in Crime No.205 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga; (ii) quash the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosadurga in Crime No.205 of 2023 dt:7.5.2023 and First Information Report filed by Hosadurga Police Station in Crime No.205 of 2023 dt: 7.5.2023 for alleged commission of offences under Section 171C, 171F of Indian Penal Code, Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Ac, 1986 and Representation of Peoples Act,1951, vide Annexures A and B.” 123(3B) Section

2.1. In Crl.P.No.10938/2023, the petitioner seeks the following prayer: “(i) call for records in Crime No.206 of 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga; - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 (ii) quash the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosadurga in Crime No.206 of 2023 dt:7.5.2023 and First filed by Hosadurga Information Report Police Station in Crime No.206 of 2023 dt: 7.5.2023 for alleged commission of offences under Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986 and Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, vide Annexures - A and B” 123(3B) Section

3. Heard Sri Balaraj A.C., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Sharath S. Dodwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2, in both the petitions. In Crl.P.No.10876/2023

4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: On 07.05.2023, the Flying Squad or the Election Officer of Hosadurga Election Constituency addresses a communication to the Assistant Director, Akshara Dasoha, Hosadurga, to take action against the petitioner for uploading a video in the Instagram, wherein, in the backdrop, the government buildings, bridge, school and colleges and also - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 students are found. The communication results in rendering a non-cognizable report at the outset and the requisition being transferred to the learned Magistrate seeking permission to register a crime for the offences. This results in registration of a crime in Crime No.205 of 2023 for the offences as afore- quoted. Registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in Crl.P.No.10876/2023. In Crl.P.No.10938/2023

4.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.05.2023, the Election Officer or the Flying Squad finds that the petitioner is carrying out election campaign through children at Jagruthi 10th Ward, Hosadurga Town. This was broadcasted on a Times new Channel. This, in a manner known to law becomes a crime in Crime No.206/2023 for the very same offences as is found in the companion petition and also under Section 123(3B) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations are figment of imagination of the complainant. Insofar as Crl.P.No.10876/2023 is concerned, the photographs - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 would clearly indicate that it was a bridge on which the petitioner’s rally was passing; behind the bridge is the school, that does not amount to usage of the school for the purpose of election or usage of public building for the purpose of election. He would further contend that insofar as other petition – Crl.P.No.10938/2023 is concerned, the parents bring their children to the rally, it does not mean that votes are being asked projecting children. They are not even voters. Therefore, he seeks quashment of the crimes impugned in both the petitions.

6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the incident narrated would meet the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and even the defence is not in dispute. As the records of investigation are placed before this Court, the offences alleged against the petitioner are the ones punishable under Section 171C of the IPC. It reads as follows: “171-C. Undue influence at elections.— (1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever— (a) (b) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1). (3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section.” Section 171C of the IPC deals with undue influence, whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election would commit undue influence.

9. The other offence alleged is, Section 171F of the IPC, which deals with punishment for undue influence or personation at an election. It reads as follows: “171-F. Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.—Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” The third offence is Section 123(3B) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits propagation of the practice of commission of Sati or its glorification. It reads as follows: “123. Corrupt practices: Xxxx (3B) The propagation of the practice or the commission of sati or its glorification by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “sati” and “glorification” in relation to sati shall have the meanings Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988)” respectively assigned - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 It is ununderstandable from where this offences would spring in the case at hand. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 is also invoked. There is not even an iota of ingredient of the offences alleged against the petitioner. These are reckless registration of the crimes, which have to be nipped in the bud. If further proceedings are permitted to continue in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, where not even an ingredient of the offences alleged against the petitioner, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL – 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it is held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023 (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion proceeding against the accused. is sufficient ground (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding instituted with an ulterior motive for maliciously wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the aforesaid facts and the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the impugned crimes registered against the petitioner. - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:48763 CRL.P No. 10876 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10938 of 2023

10. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The Criminal petitions are allowed. (ii) The Crime Nos.205 and 206 of 2023, both pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, stands quashed, qua the petitioner. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against other accused pending before the Court. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SS