Compliance with legal procedures, including the requirement of a written complaint by the public servant concerned under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is essential for the initiation of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet dated 20.10.2018 in Criminal Case No.3143/2018 arising out of Crime No.85/2018 of Market Police Station, Bidar, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 171-H, 188, 283 read with Section 149 IPC and the order dated 29.10.2018 for taking cognizance.

2. The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by Doctor Ravindrakumar, Incharge Deputy Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Flying Squad, Bidar, who was on election duty, the respondent police have registered the case. The allegations are that on 16.04.2018 in the evening hours, the complainant along with police officials had gone on patrolling duty for monitoring the election activities. When they came near Ambedkar Circle, the petitioner and few others were shouting slogans to support the BJP candidate Umakanth Nagamarapalli. Thereby, they have violated the election code of conduct.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance and charge sheet filed by the police are contrary to law and in procedure prescribed under Sections 155(2) and 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner requires to be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following decisions:

1. M.S.Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 278

2. Sachida Nand Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 493

3. in the case of Thipparaju vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 4 KarLJ 695

4. in the case of Dr.K.P.Gopal Krishna vs. H.Hariyappa, Sub-Inspector, Jeevanbheema Nagar, Police Station, Bengaluru and Another, (2018) 1 KarLJ 469

5. in the case of Sri F.J.M.Crasta vs. The State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Education Department and Others, (2018) ILR(Kar) 369

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with law. There are valid grounds to interfere with the said order and to quash the proceedings.

7. In the present case, the Government Official who was on election duty has filed a complaint directly to the police instead of filing a private complaint before the learned Magistrate as prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

8. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"

9. In the case of Thipparaju (supra) observed as under:

14. The provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines the 'complaint' which reads as under:

"2(d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report."

15. Admittedly, in the present case, the public servant has not lodged any complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate in writing as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. being mandatory and there being non-compliance, the Magistrate has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences i.e., without the complaint being made to him in writing by the public servant concerned.

16. This Court in identical circumstances in the case of Sri Manikanta v. State of Karnataka and Others,