NIA Court Can Try IPC Offences Connected to Scheduled Offence: Karnataka High Court - 2025-03-25

Karnataka High Court Upholds NIA Court's Power to Try IPC Offences Connected to Scheduled Crimes

Bengaluru, Karnataka – March 18, 2025 – In a significant judgment, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and K.S. Hemalekha , has affirmed the jurisdiction of the Special Court for National Investigation Agency (NIA) cases to try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if they are connected to scheduled offences investigated by the NIA. The ruling came in response to a writ petition challenging an order of the Special NIA Court in Bengaluru.

Case Background: KG Halli Riots and Jurisdiction Challenge

The case arises from the 2020 KG Halli riots in Bengaluru, triggered by a derogatory social media post. Initially investigated by the state police, the case was later transferred to the NIA due to the invocation of scheduled offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ) against some accused. The petitioners, accused of offences solely under the IPC and the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, approached the High Court challenging the NIA court's jurisdiction to try them, arguing that they were not charged with any scheduled offences under the NIA Act. They sought the transfer of their case to a regular court with jurisdiction over IPC offences.

Arguments Presented Before the High Court

Petitioners' Counsel , Mr. Mohammed Tahir , argued that the NIA Act grants jurisdiction to Special Courts only for cases investigated by the NIA related to scheduled offences. He contended that since the petitioners were charged only with IPC offences, and not scheduled offences, the NIA court lacked the authority to try them. Mr. Tahir emphasized the language of Section 8 of the NIA Act, arguing that "the accused" in the context of connected offences should only refer to those accused of scheduled offences.

NIA's Counsel , Special Public Prosecutor Mr. P. Prasanna Kumar , countered that the entire incident on August 11, 2020, encompassing both UAPA and IPC offences, fell under the NIA's purview. He relied on Sections 8, 14, and 20 of the NIA Act, read with Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), asserting that the NIA court is empowered to try offences connected to scheduled offences. Mr. Kumar heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ankush Vipin Kapoor vs. National Investigation Agency , arguing that it squarely covered the issue of NIA's jurisdiction over connected offences.

Reliance on Supreme Court's Ankush Vipin Kapoor Judgment

The High Court extensively analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankush Vipin Kapoor . Justice Hemalekha 's judgment highlighted the Apex Court's expansive interpretation of Section 8 of the NIA Act, which allows the NIA to investigate offences connected to scheduled offences, even if they are not scheduled offences themselves.

The court quoted extensively from the Ankush Vipin Kapoor judgment, emphasizing that the term "the accused" in Section 8 should not be narrowly construed. As the Supreme Court stated,

> "The expression ‘the accused’ in Section 8 of the NIA Act cannot be restricted in its meaning and connotation to only the accused in respect of whom investigation is being carried out pursuant to sub- sections (4) and (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act in respect of a Scheduled Offence. It could also include any other accused who has committed any other offence provided that other offence committed by any other accused has a connection or a nexus with the Scheduled Offence which is detected during the course of investigation of any Scheduled Offence."

The High Court reasoned that if Section 8 allows for investigation of connected offences, Section 14 of the NIA Act logically extends this power to the trial stage. Section 14(1) of the NIA Act states:

> "When trying any offence, a Special Court may also try any other offence with which the accused may, under the Code be charged, at the same trial if the offence is connected with such other offence."

High Court's Decision and Rationale

The Karnataka High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Special NIA Court's jurisdiction. In Justice Hemalekha 's words:

> "For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered holding that the NIA court has jurisdiction to try the offences other than the scheduled offences along with the other accused persons who have been charge sheeted for the scheduled offences. The offences charged against the petitioners is punishable under the IPC, is connected with the scheduled offence and we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out any ground for interfering with the order passed by the Special Court..."

Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar , in his concurring opinion, further emphasized the applicability of Section 223(d) of the CrPC, which allows for the joint trial of persons accused of different offences committed in the same transaction. He stated:

> "If all the offences appear to have been committed in relation to one transaction, Section 223 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has applicability. It states that persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together."

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies and reinforces the broad jurisdiction of NIA Special Courts. It confirms that these courts are not limited to trying only scheduled offences but can also adjudicate upon connected IPC offences, ensuring a comprehensive trial for all accused involved in the same incident. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for NIA cases, particularly those involving a mix of scheduled and non-scheduled offences arising from the same set of events.