SMT V DEVI PRASANNA D/O D MANJUNATH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100349 OF 2026
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SMT. V. DEVI PRASANNA D/O D. MANJUNATH
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. CLOTH BUSINESS,
RD
R/O. 315 WARD, 3 CROSS, (NEAR CHURCH)
VIDYA NAGAR, BALLARI- 583275.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRL. SCRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.
3. THE P.S.I GANDHI NAGAR P.S.
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101
THROUGH ITS S.P.P.,
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD -580011.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., 1973 AND SECTIONS 438 R/W
442 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 29.07.2026 IN NO. 03/M.A.G/GADIPARU/2026 UNDER SEC.
55(A) OF THE K.P. ACT 1963 PASSED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, BALLARI AND TO
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.17
15:57:52 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
RELEASE THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
1. This appeal is filed assailing the order dated
UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ
29.07.2026 passed in No. 03/M.A.G./ /2026 under
Section 55(A) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as “the KP Act”).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Police
Inspector, Gandhinagara Police Station, Ballari, submitted
an application dated 27.06.2026 under Section 55(A) of
the KP Act, 1963, seeking action against the petitioner.
3. The allegations against the petitioner are that,
she was procuring girls from different States and engaging
them in sexual activities, thereby disturbing the peace and
tranquillity of the society through her alleged illegal
activities. On the basis of the said application, proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner, and a notice was
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
issued calling upon her to show cause against the
allegations made therein. Subsequently, the impugned
order of externment was passed against her vide dated
29.07.2026. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.07.2026,
the petitioner has been sent to south Kenara District.
residing within the jurisdiction of Bantwal Police Station.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that, despite the petitioner submitting her reply
to the show-cause notice, respondent No.2 proceeded to
pass the impugned order of externment. It was submitted
that the impugned order is illegal, contrary to the
materials on record and liable to be set aside.
5. It was further contended that, respondent No. 2
lacked the jurisdiction and statutory authority to pass the
impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that,
before initiating proceedings under Section 55 of the KP
Act, compliance with Section 58 of the said Act was
mandatory.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
6. It was pointed out that, respondent No. 2 had
issued a show-cause notice directing the petitioner to
appear before him on 06.07.2026 at 10:00 a.m. However,
according to the learned counsel, the notice did not
contain specific allegations against the petitioner. It was
further contended that, the requisite inquiry contemplated
under Section 58 of the KP Act had not been conducted
before the issuance of the notice and the statutory
requirements had not been duly complied with.
7. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from
illegality and jurisdictional infirmity. prayed that the same
be set aside.
Per contra
8. , the learned HCGP submitted that,
respondent No. 2 had rightly passed the impugned order
on the basis of the application submitted by respondent
No. 3. It was contended that, the allegations against the
petitioner had been duly considered before passing the
impugned order. The learned HCGP further submitted that,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
approximately six criminal cases had been registered
against the petitioner and therefore, the order of
externment was justified.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
that, respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction or statutory
authority to pass the impugned order.
10. In support of this contention, the learned
counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in
Chandrakant Shankar Vaddar v. State of Karnataka ,
in Writ Petition No. 104096/2026, disposed of on
24.08.2026.
11. It was submitted that, in the said decision, this
Court, while relying upon a judgment of the Allahabad
High Court considered the meaning and scope of the
expression “District Magistrate” in the context of the
statutory authority conferred upon such officer. The
principle laid down therein is that, the statutory
description of an authority cannot be enlarged by an
executive notification so as to include an officer who does
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
not fall within the class of authorities contemplated by the
legislature.
12. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the
learned counsel contended that, respondent No. 2 being
the Superintendent of Police had no statutory authority to
pass the impugned order of externment.
13. The learned counsel also relied upon the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahesh
S/o Pandu Rathod v. State of Karnataka , in Writ
Petition No. 204081/2026, disposed of on
24.09.2026
, in support of the contention that an officer
who is not vested with the requisite statutory authority
cannot pass an order of externment under the KP Act.
14. This Court have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP. Perused the material on record, including
the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
15. The principal question that arises for
consideration is, whether respondent No. 2 was competent
and legally authorised to pass the impugned order of
externment under the relevant provisions of the KP Act.
16. In view of the principles laid down in the
aforesaid decisions of this Court, which are applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
contention regarding the absence of statutory authority in
respondent No.2 merits acceptance. Consequently, the
impugned order having been passed by an authority
lacking the requisite statutory jurisdiction, cannot be
sustained in law. Accordingly, the point for consideration
answered and this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed .
The impugned order dated 29.07.2026 passed in
UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ
No.03/M.A.G./ /2026 is hereby set aside.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17336
CRL.RP No. 100349 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020183592026
At this stage, the learned HCGP sought liberty for the
State to take appropriate action against the petitioner in
accordance with law.
The said submission is accepted. It is clarified that,
the setting aside of the impugned order shall not preclude
the competent statutory authority from initiating or taking
such action as may be permissible in law, strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the KP Act and subject
to compliance with the applicable statutory requirements.
Communicate a copy of this order to the concerned
authority forthwith.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27