SHRI CHIKKAREVANNA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102608 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)


BETWEEN:

SHRI CHIKKAREVANNA S/O. SHRI AJJAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS/SOCIAL SERVICE,
RESIDING AT ANJANEYANAGAR, RAMDURG,
TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591123.





…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SURAJ S. MUTNAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE RAMDURG POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S.528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.171(E), 188 OF IPC AND SECTION 7 R/W. 3, 6 OF
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ACT 1986 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.784/2023 (RAMDURG P.S. CRIME NO.81/2023) REGISTERED
FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 171(E) OF
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 7 READ WITH SECTIONS 3
AND 6 OF THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE)
ACT, 1988 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT RAMDURG, THE CERTIFIED
COPIES OF THE SAME ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-A AND D, AS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:







Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


ORAL ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Heard Sri Suraj S.Mutnal, learned counsel for the
petitioner/sole accused and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/
State.

2. The petitioner/accused has this petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(“Cr.P.C.” for short) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.784/2023 connection with Crime
No.81/2023 of Ramdurg Police Station, on the file of learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Ramdurg, Belagavi
District, for the offences punishable under Section 171E and
188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short”),
Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention
of Misuse) Act, 1988 (‘Act’, for short).

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


The defacto complainant lodged complaint. The defacto
complainant, who was appointed as an officer of the Flying
Squad for Ramdurg Constituency, for the general election held
in the year 2023, as per the order of the District Election
Officer, for the Assembly election. On 20.04.2023 at about
03:00 p.m., there was a holy commemoration ceremony at
Shree Revayyajjana Mutt , Obalapur Village, Ramdurg Taluk, on
rd
account of the commemoration ceremony held on 3 Death
Anniversary of Sri. Shivayya Swami. At that time, the
petitioner/accused, who was contested for general election i.e.
a candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party was present at the event,
he actively participated in the stage program, which is a
violation of model code of conduct. Further, the other
participants and other leaders who attended said programme
were raised slogans in his favour. The said act constitutes an
attempt to unduly influence the electorate and violates the
model code of conduct. Further, the petitioner/accused also
made promise to the villagers to construct a building adjacent
to the Durgamma Temple in Obalapura Village after the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


elections are over. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the
complaint against the petitioner.

4. On that basis, the FIR came to be registered and
the matter was investigated and the charge sheet was laid
against the petitioner. Taking exceptions to the same, the
petitioner has filed this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the registration of FIR initially and also the subsequent laying
of the charge sheet is not in accordance with the law as the
offence alleged under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Act, the
learned counsel submits that the said provision under Section 3
was only applicable to the Religious Institution or the Manager
thereof. The petitioner is neither Manager nor official of the
Mutt. Therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under
Section 3 of the said Act. On the above grounds, learned
counsel seeks for quashing of the above proceedings.

6. Per contra , Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara,
learned HCGP for respondent –State submits that the offence
under Section 3 of the Act is cognizable in nature and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


punishable up to 5 years and the Investigating Officer has
followed the procedure contemplated under law. Hence, learned
HCGP prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Perused the material available on record.

8. It is just and necessary to extract Section 3 of the
Religious Act, which reads as under:
"3. Prohibition of use of religious institutions for
certain purposes.—No religious institution or
manager thereof shall use or allow the use of any
premises belonging to, or under the control of, the
institution—
(a) for the promotion or propagation of any
political activity; or
(b) for the harbouring of any person accused or
convicted of an offence under any law for the time
being in force; or
(c) for the storing of any arms or ammunition; or
(d) for keeping any goods or articles in
contravention of any law for the time being in
force; or
(e) for erecting or putting up of any construction
or fortification, including basements, bunkers,
towers or walls without a valid licence or
permission under any law for the time being in
force; or
(f) for the carrying on of any unlawful or
subversive act prohibited under any law for the
time being in force or in contravention of any
order made by any court; or

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


(g) for the doing of any act which promotes or
attempts to promote disharmony of feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities; or
(h) for the carrying on of any activity prejudicial to
the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or
(i) for the doing of any act in contravention of the
provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National
Honour Act 1971 (69 of 1971)".


9. A reading of the said provision indicates that there
is prohibition on religious institutions or manager thereof from
using the religious institutions for purposes stated therein.
Therefore, it implies that it is the person in control of such
religious institutions who is prohibited from allowing such
religious institutions to be used for the purposes as prohibited
therein. The said provision does not make any reference to the
person using the Religious Institutions or the premises for the
prohibited purposes. That may be different offence altogether if
committed and would not come under Section 3 of the Religious
Act. Any such speech if made contrary to any penal provision
action could be taken against those persons under those
provisions. Section 3 of the Religious Act does not provide for

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


action to be taken against the speech maker in a religious
institution.

10. The procedure as regards violation of Section 3 of
the Religious Act is restricted only to religious institution or the
manager, thereof or whoever is in control of the said religious
institution. Thus, in the present facts and circumstances, the
authority concerned could have initiated action against the
manager but not the petitioner herein for such activities.

11. Reserving such liberty to initiate such action against
the Religious institutions or manager or persons in-charge of
the Religious institutions, the proceedings insofar as the
petitioner is concerned is required to be quashed insofar as the
offences under Section of the Religious Institutions (Prevention
of Misuse) Act, 1988.

12. As observed above, the offences which have been
alleged against the petitioner is under Section 171E of IPC and
Section 7 read with Section 3 and 6 of the Religious Act.

13. Having discussed the applicability of Section 3 and
6 of the Religious Act and having come to the conclusion that

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


they are not attracted to the present case insofar as the
petitioner is concerned, the offence that remains is that under
Section 171E of IPC. The said offence is non-cognizable
offence. However, now that by way of the above reasoning, the
proceedings against petitioners insofar as offences under
Sections 3 and 6 of the Religious Act are quashed, what
remains is the offence under Section 171E of IPC. At the time
when the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners,
since they were both cognizable and non-cognizable offences,
the prescribed under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was not required to
be followed and therefore, not followed.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that,
the issue in the case stand covered by the judgment
rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.1560/2024 disposed of on 05.04.2024, wherein the
Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is
inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the
following reasons:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


(a) Chapter IXA came to be added to the statute book
namely IPC, 1860 by way of amendment, with intent to
bring purity in election process. It seeks to make
punishable under the ordinary penal law, bribery, undue
influence & personation, and certain other malpractices at
elections not only to the Legislative bodies, but also to
membership of public authorities where the law
prescribes a method of election. Further, it intends to
debar persons guilty of malpractices from holding
positions of public responsibility for a specific period. This
chapter has to be read along with the relevant provisions
of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as it contains
additional penalties for certain offences, e.g., sections
171E to 171F of this Code. Thus a conviction under
section 171E or section 171F of IPC amounts to a
disqualification u/s.8 of RP Act, 1951. This chapter
comprises of both a dictionary clause and penal
provisions.
(b) The offence of bribery is defined under Section 171B
of IPC as under:
“171B. Bribery—
(1) Whoever—(i) gives a gratification to any person with
the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise
any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having
exercised any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any
gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to
exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery:
Provided that a declaration of public policy or a
promise of public action shall not be an offence under this
section.
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or
attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to
give a gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts
to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a
gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as
a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a
reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed
to have accepted the gratification as a reward”.
This section defines bribery as an electoral offence,
primarily as the giving or accepting of a gratification
either as a motive or as a reward to any person, either to
induce him to stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw
from being a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting
at an election. In terms of sub-section (2) inter alia it
includes offers or agreements to offer and attempt to
procure a gratification. “Gratification” is explained in
section 161 as not being restricted to only pecuniary
things. Section 171- B(1)(i) provides that if gratification is
given to any person inducing him or any other person to
exercise any electoral right, it amounts to commission of
the offence of bribery.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


c) In the above backdrop, let me examine the
penal provision namely Section 171(E) of IPC which reads
as under:
“Punishment for bribery.—Whoever commits
the offence of bribery shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both:
Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished
with fine only.”
In order to fit into the definition of ‘bribery’ the
requirement is that there should be a person who gives or
at least offers to give any gratification as a reward for
exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such
a right, by another person. Thus, there should be
minimum two persons involved in the act, namely one
who bribes or offers to bribe and the other who is bribed
or offered bribe.
(d) Added to the above, it is not the case of respondents
that the alleged act has been done by the person
concerned for and on behalf of the petitioner herein. To
put it succinctly, what emerges from the complaint is that
a particular person was carrying the money and that the
same has been seized since it was suspected to be used
for electoral offences. All that does not amount to the
offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at
their face value, and therefore there is no scope for
invoking section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


e) The next allegation in the complaint relates to
the offence punishable under section 133 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951. The same reads as
under:
“Penalty for illegal hiring or procuring of
conveyance at elections.—If any person is guilty of
any such corrupt practice as is specified in clause
(5) of section 123 at or in connection with an
election, he shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to three months and with fine.”
The above penal provision in turn refers to a corrupt
practice as is specified inter alia in clause 5 of section 123
at or in connection with an election. Section 123 deals
with certain acts as corrupt practices. Sub-section(5)
specifies one of them, with the following text:
“(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment
or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a
candidate or his agent or by any other person [with
the consent of a candidate or his election agent]
[or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free
conveyance] of any elector (other than the
candidate himself the members of his family or his
agent) to or from any polling station provided
under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section
(1) of section 29 for the poll”
Employing the vehicle or vessel as contemplated in the
above provision, is a sine qua non for the invocation of
section 133. It is nobody’s case that something of the
kind exists in the allegations leveled against the person
concerned and more particularly, the petitioner herein. In
the absence of ingredients as specified in section 123(5),
one would be miles away from the precincts of section
133 of 1951 Act.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds. The
proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of Nipani Town Police
Station, now pending in CC No.2990/2023 on the file of
learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under
sections 120(1) & 133 of Representation of People Act,
1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section
171(E) of IPC, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set
free of the subject case.”

15. In the light of the order passed by the Co-
Ordinate Bench of this Court stated supra and for the
reasons above stated, the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner requires to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is hereby allowed .

(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.784/2023
(arising out of Crime No.81/2023 of
Ramadurga Police Station), pending on the
file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Ramadurga, insofar as petitioner is
concerned, are quashed.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17192
CRL.P No. 102608 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020097622025


In view of disposal of the criminal petition, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
accordingly the same are disposed off.

Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE


CLK, AM/-
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16