Sri Nagesh T vs. State Of Karnataka By

Facts

The petitioners, Sri Nagesh T and others, approached the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No. 114/2024. These proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, for alleged offences under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 123(1) of the Representation of People Act (RP Act). The FIR was registered on March 20, 2024, by the Govindaraja Nagar Police Station. The petitioners contended that the ingredients for the alleged offences were not made out, that the subject rice bags were not recovered from them, and that no action was taken against alleged recipients. They also argued that the distribution of rice bags at discounted prices to beneficiaries of a government scheme did not constitute the alleged offences. Furthermore, they asserted that the offences were non-cognizable and the proceedings were initiated without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The State argued that the petitions lacked merit.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. The Court found that the material on record, including the complaint, FIR, charge sheet, and witness statements, did not establish the necessary ingredients for offences under Section 171-E of the IPC or Section 123(1) of the RP Act. It was noted that the subject rice bags were not recovered from the petitioners or the alleged voters, and no action was taken against the alleged voters. Furthermore, documents like a letter dated February 28, 2024, an agreement dated March 1, 2024, and GST invoices indicated that permission was granted by Kendriya Bandar to sell/distribute the rice bags at discounted rates, suggesting the petitioners were not guilty of the alleged offences. Crucially, the Court reiterated its previous holding in Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda’s case, emphasizing that for non-cognizable offences, the absence of legal, proper, and valid permission obtained from the learned Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. rendered the proceedings liable to be quashed. The ratio decidendi is that criminal proceedings initiated for non-cognizable offences without compliance with Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. are unsustainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the material on record, including the FIR and charge sheet, establishes the necessary ingredients for offences punishable under Section 171-E of the IPC and Section 123(1) of the RP Act, as argued by the petitioners. 2. Whether the alleged distribution of rice bags at discounted prices to beneficiaries of a government scheme constitutes the offences under Section 171-E of the IPC and Section 123(1) of the RP Act, as contended by the petitioners. 3. Whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that the alleged offences are non-cognizable and the mandatory permission under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. was not obtained, as argued by the petitioners, relying on the precedent in Smt. Shashikala Krishnegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. The petitioners argued that the ingredients of the offences were not met, the rice bags were not recovered from them, and no action was taken against alleged recipients. They also argued that the discounted sale of rice bags did not amount to the alleged offences. The primary contention was that the non-cognizable nature of the offences necessitated prior permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., which was absent. The respondent State argued that the petitions had no merit.