Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2239 (KAR)

H. D. Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka

2019-12-02

R.DEVDAS

body2019
ORDER : 1. These three criminal petitions arise out of three different complaints lodged by an Electoral Officer appointed by the Chief Election Commissioner to monitor the elections that took place in the month of March, 2014. The petitioner is the former Chief Minister against whom the official complainant has filed three different complaints for offences punishable under Sections 188 and 341 of IPC. 2. Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these matters would submit that the matter stands covered by various decisions of co-ordinate benches of this Court. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to at least three decisions in the case of Sri. M. Veerappa Moily vs. State of Karnataka and Another decided on 30.07.2015 in Crl. Pet. No. 2237/2015 in the case of K.S. Eshwarappa vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl. Pet. No. 201195/2015 decided on 13.04.2016 and in the case of H.D. Kumaraswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl. Pet. No. 7342/2016 decided on 05.10.2016. 3. In the case of K.S. Eshwarappa (supra) this Court while referring to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has held that the said provision clearly creates a statutory bar on the Court for taking cognizance unless the complaint in writing is made by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It was therefore held that the provision takes away the general power of the Magistrate under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance without there being a complaint in writing. The Co-ordinate bench has further taken note of Section 171 (H) of IPC and held that the said provision is catagorised as non-cognizable offence under the classification of the offence in schedule-II of the Cr.P.C. When the offence is declared as non-cognizable in nature, Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. bars the police to investigate such matter without the valid permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. In so far as Section 341 of IPC is concerned, it has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the complaint would very clearly show that there is no specific allegation or personal allegation against the petitioner that he was guilty of restraining any person wrongfully. On the other hand, it is stated in the complaint that the workers of the political party have caused inconvenience to the general public by blocking the road. On the other hand, it is stated in the complaint that the workers of the political party have caused inconvenience to the general public by blocking the road. Therefore, it is submitted that the said allegation not being specific to the petitioner, the FIRs' are required to be quashed. 5. Learned HCGP submits that though the other provision i.e. Section 188 is covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench however, Section 341 is not covered. 6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and on perusing the petition papers and the decisions referred to, it is found that this court has consistently held that unless and until there is a private complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. made to the Magistrate, the offence punishable under Sections 172 and 188, both inclusion of I PC cannot be taken cognizance of. 7. In so far as Section 341 is concerned, this Court accepts the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the complaint does not make out a case as against the petitioner. The allegation is purportedly against the 'party' or the workers of the party. 8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions are required to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The Final Report in Crime No. 111/2014 dated 14.04.2014 in C.C.No.28/2014; Final Report in Crime No.97/2014 dated 21.04.2014 submitted in C.C.No.29.2014 and Final Report in Crime No.95/2014 dated 21.04.2014 submitted in C.C.No.370/2015, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkaballapura and all further proceedings pursuant to the FIRs' are hereby quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. 9. Liberty is granted to the respondent to initiate the proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised.