Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7306
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI. BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 11251 of 2024
The court quashed the registration of a crime as the allegations did not constitute a prima facie offence under Section 192 of the BNS, preventing abuse of the legal process.
Headnote:(A) BNS - Section 192 - Criminal procedure - Registration of crime challenged - Petitioner, a member of the legislative assembly, made a statement regarding political corruption, leading to a complaint alleging communal disharmony - Court found that the statement did not meet the ingredients of the offence under Section 192 - The registration of the crime was deemed an abuse of process. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - The court reiterated the principles for quashing FIRs, emphasizing that allegations must constitute a prima facie case for an offence. (Paras 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner made a statement during a press meet alleging corruption involving a political leader, which led to a complaint claiming potential communal disharmony.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint did not meet the necessary legal ingredients for the offence alleged, leading to the quashing of the crime registration.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the statement made by the petitioner constituted an offence under Section 192 of the BNS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence, thus quashing the registration of the crime to prevent abuse of the legal process.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.113 of 2024 registered for offence punishable under Section 192 of the BNS .
2. Heard Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B .N., learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is a member of the legislative assembly. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that on 29-09-2024, the petitioner along with other leaders while discussing about a particular political issue, after the meeting addresses a press meet and had made a statement that a leader who belongs to the Congress party has collected Rs.1000 crores and is using this money to purchase other MLAs and bring down the present Government. The said statement of the petitioner is said to have published in the newspaper on 26-09-24 and 30-09-24, both in electronic and print media. Based upon the said statement, a complaint comes to be made by the 2nd respondent - General Secretary of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee before the jurisdictional police alleging that the statement made was capable of bringing communal disharmony between two religious entities. Based upon the said complaint, the aforesaid crime comes to be registered. Registration of the crime, drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the statement nowhere indicated or indicative of any particular person. It does not meet the ingredients of Section 192 of the BNS , which is Section 153 of the earlier regime - the IPC. He would submit the statement nowhere indicates any of the ingredients. Therefore, seeks quashment of the same.
5. The complainant though served remains unrepresented.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor seeks to defend the action of the 2nd respondent in registering the crime, but would admit that the ingredients of Section 192 of the BNS are not met.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint and it reads as follows:
This becomes a crime in Crime No.113 of 2024. The offence is the one punishable under Section 192 of the BNS . Section 192 of the BNS deals with punishment to a person who wantonly gives provocation with an intent to cause riot. I fail to understand where from the statement would meet the ingredients of wanton, malignant and provocation to cause a riot. Therefore, the crime is registered for the heck of registration. Permitting further investigation into such crimes without it having any of the ingredients, will be permitting a reckless registration of the crime to be investigated into. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case ofSTATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL , 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335wherein the Apex Court holds 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
