Read Time: 09 minutes
According to facts of the case, a public meeting was organised by the BJP on May 07, 2023 at the IB Circle at Harapanahalli Assembly Constituency of Vijayanagar District. At about 1.00 p.m. Nadda, is said to have addressed a public meeting wherein it is alleged that he has wooed or threatened voters which was recorded by the officials of Election Commission
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against BJP president J P Nadda, for allegedly threatening or wooing voters in violation of Election Code of Conduct during a public meeting,
The Court has said that a “damocles sword of crime can't be left hanging on a vague complaint”.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna pointed out that if further investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner, it would become a classic case of permitting investigation in a reckless registration of crime, which on the face of it, would become an abuse of the process of law.
The court allowed a writ petition filed by Nadda to quash the case and the proceedings. High Court states that if the complaint is considered on the touchstone of the contents of Sections 171C, 171D and 171F of the IPC, what would unmistakably emerge, is a "reckless registration of crime and a loosely laid offence".
It noted the complaint nowhere narrates that the petitioner has unduly interfered with the free exercise of anyone’s electoral right, nor does it narrates that the petitioner is guilty of personation as defined under Section 171D of the IPC in the elections.
An incident to become an offence under Section 171F, the minimum requirement is narration in the complaint of the ingredients of undue influence or personation.
"The allegation is that Code of Conduct has been violated by the petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on 07-05-2023 by threatening the voters. The complaint is so vague that it would daunt vagueness itself. On such a vague complaint which is loosely made against the petitioner, the crime in Crime No.89 of 2023 is registered and the damocles sword of crime is left hanging on the petitioner projecting it to be an offence," the bench said.
This led to registration of a complaint before the Police on May 9, 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 171F of the IPC. Since Section 171F is a non-cognizable offence, in terms of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C, for registration of FIR on a non-cognizable offence, permission of the Magistrate is imperative. The permission comes to be granted.
The court, however, pointed out an incident to become an offence under Section 171F, the minimum requirement is narration in the complaint of the ingredients of undue influence or personation. The allegation is that Code of Conduct has been violated by the petitioner, by threatening the voters.
"The complaint is so vague that it would daunt vagueness itself. On such a vague complaint which is loosely made against the petitioner, the crime is registered and the damocles sword of crime is left hanging on the petitioner projecting it to be an offence," the bench said.
Relying upon the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal' and Others (1992), the bench said therefore, permitting further proceedings would be putting a premium upon reckless registration of crime against the petitioner.
"Thus, this should be nipped in the bud by entertaining the petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as the complaint itself nowhere makes out any offence against the petitioner that would become punishable under Section 171F of the IPC," the bench said.
The petitioner, among other grounds, also contended the Magistrate has accorded his permission by the word “permitted” which does not bear any application of mind and, therefore, is contrary to law.
The state counsel, on the contrary, said if the court wanted to quash the FIR on non-application of mind by the magistrate, the matter may be remitted back for the purpose. He also said the issue is still in the crime stage. At least investigation should be permitted. Without permitting investigation if the court were to quash the proceedings, it would be contrary to several judgements of the Apex Court which hold that the complaint cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of the offences.
The court, however, said, "In the light of the issue being answered on the merit of the matter itself, the submission with regard to non-application of mind by the Magistrate while granting permission for registration of FIR and on that score matter being remitted back to the Magistrate for re-consideration, would pale into insignificance. Finding no merit in the complaint, the petition deserves to succeed."
Case Title: JP Nadda Vs State of Karnata & Anr
Click here to read judgment
Please Login or Register
