Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Legislator Whose Photos Were Found On Pressure Cookers During Assembly Elections

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against legislator R.Akhanda Srinivas Murthy, who was charged after certain cartons of pressure cookers were found in a building which had his sticker pasted, during the State Assembly Election held in 2023.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Murthy and T N R Rohit and quashed the case registered under Section 171-E and 171-F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act.

The bench said, “Perusal of the contents obtained in the complaint does not meet ingredients necessary to bring home the offences as alleged.”

The petitioner had argued that the permission granted by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. bears no application of mind and the informant has not travelled to the Court of the Magistrate seeking permission, but it is the Station House Officer who seeks permission. The ingredients even if they are taken on their face value would not amount to an offence under Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Act.

The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that it is not mandatory that the informant alone should go to the Magistrate seeking permission. The ingredients of the offences are prima facie met, therefore, it is a matter that has to be tried, since the charge sheet is already filed.

The bench held “If what is found to be necessary ingredients as held in J.P.NADDA being absent in the case at hand, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law...In that light considering the earlier judgment of this Bench in VIJESH PILLAI supra this Court did hold that either the informant or the Station House Officer can seek permission of the learned Magistrate in a non-cognizable offence. Merely because the informant does not go to the Magistrate to seek permission it would not vitiate the proceedings.”

Following this, it said, “Therefore, the contention that the informant has not sought permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate becomes unacceptable. But, that would not mean that the matter should be remitted to the hands of the learned Magistrate or the concerned special Court, in the light of the offence itself not being met in the case at hand. Therefore, permitting further proceedings, despite the aforesaid lacunae in the ingredients for the offence and the procedural aberration, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik for Advocate Vikram Ramalingam R for Petitioner.

Additional SPP B.N Jagadeesha for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 52

Case Title: R Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy AND State of Karnataka

Case No:CRIMINAL PETITION No.1369 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.2993 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order