Compliance with legal provisions, especially Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is crucial before taking cognizance of an offence.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok G Nijagannavar, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.177/2017 arising out of Crime No.16/2016 of Devadurga Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 171(H) & 188 of IPC.

2. The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Sri.Shivasharanappa Kattole, Tahasildar Deodurga, the respondent - police have registered the case. The allegations are that on 18.1.2016 the petitioner had submitted an application seeking permission to hold the meeting on behalf of the Congress party. Considering the said application, the permission was granted. Thereafter, it was learnt that on 19.1.2016 a public meeting was held in a Kalyan Mantap at Manasgal Renganath Temple, a public place and thereby the petitioner has violated the Election Code of Conduct.

3. This matter is at the stage of admission. With the consent of both the learned counsel appearing on both side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings initiated by filing the charge sheet are not in accordance with law. As such, the said proceedings cannot be sustained in law. There are valid grounds for quashing the entire proceedings.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Thipparaju vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 4 KarLJ 695

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

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

7. Per contra, the learned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and initiation of proceedings are in accordance with law. There are no grounds to interfere with the said orders or to quash the further proceedings. As such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

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 noncompliance, 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, in W.P.No.23611 of 2015, dated 16.06.2015, wherein also the police have registered a case in Crime No.167 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Karnataka Police Act and also under Section 18