- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3659 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3652 OF 2024 IN CRL.P No. 3659/2024 BETWEEN: SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: MLA, VIJAYAPURA CONSTITUTENCY R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 KARNATAKA …PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE) PADMAVATHI B K AND: Location: High Court of 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Karnataka BY P.S. GANDHI COWKA POLICE STATION VIJAYAPURA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI S.B. JIDDIMANI S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGE 58 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR OCC. ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FST-02 CHIEF VIJAYAPURA - 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SURYA MUKUNDRAJ L., ADVCOATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.52/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION, VIAJAYAPURA, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BIJAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 171G OF IPC,

PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. IN CRL.P NO. 3652/2024 BETWEEN: SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: MLA VIJAYAPRUA CONSTITUENCY, R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P S GANDHI COWKA POLICE STATION, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR VIJAYAPURA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT TABU RAO W/O DINESH GUNDURAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, HIG COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SURYA MUKUNDARAJ L., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.70/2024 REGISTERED BY SANJAY NAGAR P.S., TRANSERRED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GANDHI CHOWK P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT AT BIJAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 153B OF IPC PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"In Crl.P.No.3659/2024: Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash First Information Report in Crime No.52/2024 registered by the Respondent No.1 Gandhi Chowk Police Station Viajayapura pending on the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC Bijapur for the offences punishable U/s 171 G of IPC produced at Document No.1 in the interest of justice and equity. In Crl.P.No.3652/2024: Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash First Information Report in Crime No.70/2024 registered by Sanjaynagar police station transferred to the Respondent No.1 Gandhi Chowk Police Station pending on the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC at Bijapur for the offences punishable U/s 153B of IPC produced at Document No.1 in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri. Venkatesh Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Surya Mukundaraj L., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in both the cases and have perused the material on record. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in Crime Nos.52/2024 and 70/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 171G and 153B of the IPC. The entire issue has sprung from the complaint so registered, one by the election officer and one by a private person. Both the contents of the complaint are the same. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the said complaint. The complaint so filed in both the crime numbers read as follows: In Crl.P.No.3659/2024: gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï UÁA¢üZËPÀ ¥ÉƯÉÆøï oÁuÉ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ £Á£ÀÄ J¸ï.©. drتÀĤ, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 59 ªÀµÀð, DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁj, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ, J¥sï.J¸ï.n-02 ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 30 ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæ ªÉÆ.£ÀA:9449005365 mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ K£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀå 2024 ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤«ÄvÀå «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ-30 ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæzÀ J¥sï.J¸ï.n.-02 vÀAqÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜjzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAqÀzÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÁV ¹.Dgï. PÀnÖªÀĤ, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸À. ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ gÁd EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ n.JªÀiï ±ÉïÁgÀ, J.J¸ï.L. UÁA¢üZËPÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨É½UÉÎ 07.00 jAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 02.00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ PÀvÀðªÀå«zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅ 09.30UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÁÝUÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 30 gÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, AiÀÄvÁå¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÉñÀ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ " ªÀÄ£ÁåUÀ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À L¬Ä, zÉñÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ ZÀl DUÉÊAiÉÄ " CAvÁ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ «rAiÉÆà EzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ «rAiÉÆà vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÁA¢üZËPÀ oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr CAvÁ w½¹zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ «rAiÉÆà £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj «rAiÉÆÃzÀ°è «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, AiÀÄvÁß¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÉñÀ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ " ªÀÄ£ÁåUÀ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À Lw, zÉñÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ ZÀl DUÉÊvÉ " CAvÁ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀå ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ eÁjAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, AiÀÄvÁß¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÉñÀ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ " ªÀÄ£ÁåUÀ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À Lw, zÉñÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ ZÀl DUÉÊvÉ " CAvÁ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, DzÀÝjAzÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, (AiÀÄvÁß¼À) ¸Á|| «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä £À£Àß ¦AiÀiÁð¢ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ AiÀÄvÁå¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁrzÀ «rAiÉÆëgÀĪÀ ¹.r. C£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ, ¦AiÀiÁð¢ PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄâüPÁjUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ZÀZÉð ªÀiÁr, vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ." In Crl.P.No.3652/2024: EªÀjUÉ, oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EAzÀ, l§Ä gÁªï PÉÆÃA ¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï, 55 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.116, 6£Éà PÁæ¸ï, 3£Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÉZï.L.f. PÁ¯ÉÆä, Dgï.JA.«. JgÀqÀ£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-94 ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA.9620838498 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ±Á¸ÀPÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî AiÀÄvÁß¼ï CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¥Àw ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ¸À£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆðPÉ ªÀiÁr zÉñÀ«gÉÆâüUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¤A¢¹ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV CªÀºÉüÀ£À ªÀiÁr ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ zsÀPÉÌ vÀA¢gÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÆÃj zÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸ÀaªÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ E§âgÀÄ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÀiÁf ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ ²æà Dgï.UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À læ¹Ö£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁd ¸ÉÃªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ CAvÀzsÀ«ÄÃðAiÀÄ «ªÁºÀªÁVzÀÄÝ zÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁdPÉÌ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÉÝêÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 02-30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæwQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è ±Á¸ÀPÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï AiÀÄvÁß¼ï gÀªÀgÀÄ gÁªÉÄñÀégÀ PÉ¥sÉ ¸ÉÆàÃl ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÖ ©f¦ PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀð£À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð£É ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¨sÀgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ¥Àw UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀaªÀgÁzÀ ¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß nÃQ¸À®Ä F jÃw CªÀºÉüÀ£ÀPÁj ºÉýPÉ - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ "¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£À«zÉ, zÉñÀ«gÉÆâ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ZÀlªÁVzÉ" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ºÉýPÉAiÀÄÄ J¯Áè ¸ÀĢݪÁ»¤UÀ¼À°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĢݪÁ»¤UÀ¼À C¢üPÀÈvÀ AiÀÄÆlÆå¨ï SÁvÉUÀ¼À°è gÁeÁåzÁåAvÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁgÀªÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2024 gÀ ¥ÀæeÁªÁt ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ 3J ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ©eɦ ±Á¸ÀPÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï AiÀÄvÁß¼ï ºÉýPÉ "¢£ÉÃ±ï ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£À" JA§ ²Ã¶ðPÉAiÀÄ°è gÁdåªÀÄlÖzÀ ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀiÁV ¥ÀæPÀlªÁVzÉ. F ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è N¢ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ £ÉÆêÀÅAmÁVzÉ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀºÉüÀ£À ªÀiÁr ¤A¢¹ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ zÀPÉÌvÀA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀĪÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄĹèA zsÀªÀÄðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆð¹ CªÀºÉüÀ£À PÁj ºÉýPÉ ¤Ãr £À£Àß zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ £ÉÆêÀÅAlĪÀiÁr ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV CªÀºÉüÀ£À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄĸÀ¯Áä£ï zsÀªÀÄðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ zÉñÀ«gÉÆâü ºÉýPÉ, ¨sÀAiÉÆÃvÁàzÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ EzÉÝêÉAzÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ zÀPÉÌ vÀA¢gÀĪÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï AiÀÄvÁß¼ï «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À»/- (l§Ä gÁªï) 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis gets completely answered by what the Apex Court has held in the case of HARI NANDAN SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND1, wherein it has held as follows:

"11. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand and perused the material on record. 12. During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC and contended that if the ingredients of these offences are juxtaposed with the relevant portions of the complaint extracted above, it is easily discernible that no offence whatsoever has been made 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 574 - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR out under the aforesaid Sections. Further the charge under Section 353 does not arise at all as against the appellant and the offences under Sections 298, 504 of the IPC are not compoundable offences. He therefore, submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro ought to have allowed the application seeking discharge and closed the proceedings against the appellant herein. 13. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the High Court was also not right in sustaining the order dated 06.07.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and thereby dismissing the Criminal Misc. Petition. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside and the application filed by the appellant herein may be allowed.

14. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is presently aged about 80 years and at this stage of his life, he has been forced to face this criminal proceeding. 15. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-State with reference to his counter affidavit contended that there is no merit in this appeal; that the counter affidavit has in detail narrated as to how the offences have been rightly alleged against the appellant herein. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order would not call for any interference in this appeal. 16. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. For the sake of immediate reference, we extract Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC as under: “Section 353 : Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

Section 298 : Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 17. Before considering the claim of the parties, it is useful to refer to Sections 227 and 228 CrPC which are reproduced below: “227. Discharge.— If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.—(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report; - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

From the above, it is clear that the Judge must examine all case records, review the submitted documents, and hear the arguments from both the accused and the prosecution. If the Judge finds that there is “not sufficient ground” to proceed against the accused, they must discharge the accused while providing reasons for the decision. However, if after such examination and hearing, the Judge believes that there is “ground for presuming” that the accused has committed an offence, they may proceed by framing charges in writing and directing the accused to stand trial as per the prescribed procedure. This Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 has on consideration of the various decisions about the scope of Sections 227 of the Code, laid down the following principle “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v.) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 18. Applying the aforesaid judgment to the present case in light of what has been extracted above as the relevant portion of the First Information Report in light of the offence alleged as against the appellant herein, we do not find that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant herein find place in FIR registered as against him. 19. A bare perusal of Case No. 140 of 2020 reveals that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out. Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC. Further, the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC. Additionally, we find that the appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well." 5. If the complaint so registered against the petitioner and the crimes that have sprung pursuant to the registration of the complaint is considered on the bedrock on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, permitting further investigation in the case at hand would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of the said judgment. In that light, these petitions deserve to succeed. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed. - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR (ii) Proceedings in Crime Nos.52/2024 and 70/2024 stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3659 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3652 OF 2024 IN CRL.P No. 3659/2024 BETWEEN: SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: MLA, VIJAYAPURA CONSTITUTENCY R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 KARNATAKA …PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE) PADMAVATHI B K AND: Location: High Court of 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Karnataka BY P.S. GANDHI COWKA POLICE STATION VIJAYAPURA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI S.B. JIDDIMANI S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGE 58 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR OCC. ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FST-02 CHIEF VIJAYAPURA - 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SURYA MUKUNDRAJ L., ADVCOATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.52/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION, VIAJAYAPURA, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BIJAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 171G OF IPC,

PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. IN CRL.P NO. 3652/2024 BETWEEN: SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) S/O RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: MLA VIJAYAPRUA CONSTITUENCY, R/AT OLD IB, STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P S GANDHI COWKA POLICE STATION, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR VIJAYAPURA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT TABU RAO W/O DINESH GUNDURAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, HIG COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SURYA MUKUNDARAJ L., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.70/2024 REGISTERED BY SANJAY NAGAR P.S., TRANSERRED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GANDHI CHOWK P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT AT BIJAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 153B OF IPC PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"In Crl.P.No.3659/2024: Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash First Information Report in Crime No.52/2024 registered by the Respondent No.1 Gandhi Chowk Police Station Viajayapura pending on the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC Bijapur for the offences punishable U/s 171 G of IPC produced at Document No.1 in the interest of justice and equity. In Crl.P.No.3652/2024: Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash First Information Report in Crime No.70/2024 registered by Sanjaynagar police station transferred to the Respondent No.1 Gandhi Chowk Police Station pending on the file of learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC at Bijapur for the offences punishable U/s 153B of IPC produced at Document No.1 in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri. Venkatesh Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Surya Mukundaraj L., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in both the cases and have perused the material on record. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in Crime Nos.52/2024 and 70/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 171G and 153B of the IPC. The entire issue has sprung from the complaint so registered, one by the election officer and one by a private person. Both the contents of the complaint are the same. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the said complaint. The complaint so filed in both the crime numbers read as follows: In Crl.P.No.3659/2024: gÀªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï UÁA¢üZËPÀ ¥ÉƯÉÆøï oÁuÉ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ £Á£ÀÄ J¸ï.©. drتÀĤ, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 59 ªÀµÀð, DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁj, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ, J¥sï.J¸ï.n-02 ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 30 ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæ ªÉÆ.£ÀA:9449005365 mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁr¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ K£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀå 2024 ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤«ÄvÀå «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ-30 ªÀÄvÀPÉëÃvÀæzÀ J¥sï.J¸ï.n.-02 vÀAqÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜjzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAqÀzÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÁV ¹.Dgï. PÀnÖªÀĤ, ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸À. ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ gÁd EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀ, «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ n.JªÀiï ±ÉïÁgÀ, J.J¸ï.L. UÁA¢üZËPÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨É½UÉÎ 07.00 jAzÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 02.00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ PÀvÀðªÀå«zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅ 09.30UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÁÝUÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ 30 gÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, AiÀÄvÁå¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÉñÀ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ " ªÀÄ£ÁåUÀ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À L¬Ä, zÉñÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ ZÀl DUÉÊAiÉÄ " CAvÁ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ «rAiÉÆà EzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃªÀÅ «rAiÉÆà vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ UÁA¢üZËPÀ oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr CAvÁ w½¹zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ «rAiÉÆà £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj «rAiÉÆÃzÀ°è «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, AiÀÄvÁß¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÉñÀ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ " ªÀÄ£ÁåUÀ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À Lw, zÉñÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ ZÀl DUÉÊvÉ " CAvÁ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀå ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ eÁjAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, AiÀÄvÁß¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÉñÀ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ " ªÀÄ£ÁåUÀ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ£À Lw, zÉñÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀÄAqÀÄgÁªÀ ZÀl DUÉÊvÉ " CAvÁ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, DzÀÝjAzÀ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÁzÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï, (AiÀÄvÁß¼À) ¸Á|| «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä £À£Àß ¦AiÀiÁð¢ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ AiÀÄvÁå¼À gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁrzÀ «rAiÉÆëgÀĪÀ ¹.r. C£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ, ¦AiÀiÁð¢ PÉÆqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄâüPÁjUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ZÀZÉð ªÀiÁr, vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ." In Crl.P.No.3652/2024: EªÀjUÉ, oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EAzÀ, l§Ä gÁªï PÉÆÃA ¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï, 55 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.116, 6£Éà PÁæ¸ï, 3£Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÉZï.L.f. PÁ¯ÉÆä, Dgï.JA.«. JgÀqÀ£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-94 ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA.9620838498 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ±Á¸ÀPÀ §¸À£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî AiÀÄvÁß¼ï CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¥Àw ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁQ¸ÁÛ¸À£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆðPÉ ªÀiÁr zÉñÀ«gÉÆâüUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¤A¢¹ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV CªÀºÉüÀ£À ªÀiÁr ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ zsÀPÉÌ vÀA¢gÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÆÃj zÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸ÀaªÀgÁzÀ ²æà ¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ E§âgÀÄ ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÀiÁf ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¢ªÀAUÀvÀ ²æà Dgï.UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À læ¹Ö£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁd ¸ÉÃªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ CAvÀzsÀ«ÄÃðAiÀÄ «ªÁºÀªÁVzÀÄÝ zÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£ÀzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁdPÉÌ ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÉÝêÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 02-30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæwQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ°è ±Á¸ÀPÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï AiÀÄvÁß¼ï gÀªÀgÀÄ gÁªÉÄñÀégÀ PÉ¥sÉ ¸ÉÆàÃl ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÖ ©f¦ PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀð£À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÀªÀÄxÀð£É ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¨sÀgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ¥Àw UÁA¢ü£ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀaªÀgÁzÀ ¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß nÃQ¸À®Ä F jÃw CªÀºÉüÀ£ÀPÁj ºÉýPÉ - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ "¢£Éñï UÀÄAqÀÆgÁªï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£À«zÉ, zÉñÀ«gÉÆâ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ZÀlªÁVzÉ" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ºÉýPÉAiÀÄÄ J¯Áè ¸ÀĢݪÁ»¤UÀ¼À°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĢݪÁ»¤UÀ¼À C¢üPÀÈvÀ AiÀÄÆlÆå¨ï SÁvÉUÀ¼À°è gÁeÁåzÁåAvÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁgÀªÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2024 gÀ ¥ÀæeÁªÁt ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ 3J ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è «dAiÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ©eɦ ±Á¸ÀPÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï AiÀÄvÁß¼ï ºÉýPÉ "¢£ÉÃ±ï ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£À" JA§ ²Ã¶ðPÉAiÀÄ°è gÁdåªÀÄlÖzÀ ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀiÁV ¥ÀæPÀlªÁVzÉ. F ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¸ÀAdAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è N¢ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ £ÉÆêÀÅAmÁVzÉ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀºÉüÀ£À ªÀiÁr ¤A¢¹ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ zÀPÉÌvÀA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀĪÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄĹèA zsÀªÀÄðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ¼ÀÄ JA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆð¹ CªÀºÉüÀ£À PÁj ºÉýPÉ ¤Ãr £À£Àß zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ £ÉÆêÀÅAlĪÀiÁr ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV CªÀºÉüÀ£À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄĸÀ¯Áä£ï zsÀªÀÄðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ CzsÀð ¥ÁQ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ zÉñÀ«gÉÆâü ºÉýPÉ, ¨sÀAiÉÆÃvÁàzÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ EzÉÝêÉAzÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ¨sÁªÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ zÀPÉÌ vÀA¢gÀĪÀ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánïï AiÀÄvÁß¼ï «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À»/- (l§Ä gÁªï) 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis gets completely answered by what the Apex Court has held in the case of HARI NANDAN SINGH V. STATE OF JHARKHAND1, wherein it has held as follows:

"11. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand and perused the material on record. 12. During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC and contended that if the ingredients of these offences are juxtaposed with the relevant portions of the complaint extracted above, it is easily discernible that no offence whatsoever has been made 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 574 - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR out under the aforesaid Sections. Further the charge under Section 353 does not arise at all as against the appellant and the offences under Sections 298, 504 of the IPC are not compoundable offences. He therefore, submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro ought to have allowed the application seeking discharge and closed the proceedings against the appellant herein. 13. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the High Court was also not right in sustaining the order dated 06.07.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and thereby dismissing the Criminal Misc. Petition. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside and the application filed by the appellant herein may be allowed.

14. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is presently aged about 80 years and at this stage of his life, he has been forced to face this criminal proceeding. 15. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-State with reference to his counter affidavit contended that there is no merit in this appeal; that the counter affidavit has in detail narrated as to how the offences have been rightly alleged against the appellant herein. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order would not call for any interference in this appeal. 16. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. For the sake of immediate reference, we extract Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC as under: “Section 353 : Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

Section 298 : Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 17. Before considering the claim of the parties, it is useful to refer to Sections 227 and 228 CrPC which are reproduced below: “227. Discharge.— If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.—(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report; - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

From the above, it is clear that the Judge must examine all case records, review the submitted documents, and hear the arguments from both the accused and the prosecution. If the Judge finds that there is “not sufficient ground” to proceed against the accused, they must discharge the accused while providing reasons for the decision. However, if after such examination and hearing, the Judge believes that there is “ground for presuming” that the accused has committed an offence, they may proceed by framing charges in writing and directing the accused to stand trial as per the prescribed procedure. This Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 has on consideration of the various decisions about the scope of Sections 227 of the Code, laid down the following principle “21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v.) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 18. Applying the aforesaid judgment to the present case in light of what has been extracted above as the relevant portion of the First Information Report in light of the offence alleged as against the appellant herein, we do not find that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant herein find place in FIR registered as against him. 19. A bare perusal of Case No. 140 of 2020 reveals that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out. Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR

the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC. Further, the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC. Additionally, we find that the appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well." 5. If the complaint so registered against the petitioner and the crimes that have sprung pursuant to the registration of the complaint is considered on the bedrock on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, permitting further investigation in the case at hand would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of the said judgment. In that light, these petitions deserve to succeed. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed. - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:30526 CRL.P No. 3659 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 3652 of 2024 HC-KAR (ii) Proceedings in Crime Nos.52/2024 and 70/2024 stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2