SHRI GURULING SIDDAPPA SHINGANAVAR S/O SHRI SIDDAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024



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. 100781 OF 2024

(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI GURULING SIDDAPPA SHINGANAVAR
S/O. SHRI SIDDAPPA
AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
RESIDING AT TEGGIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591117.

2. SHRI PUNDALIKAPPA RUDRAPPA VADEKANAVAR
S/O. SHRI RUDRAPPA
AGE: ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: FARMER,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

3. SHRI SIDDAYYA REVANAYYA GURUSWAMI
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: PRIEST,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMDURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

4. SHRI SHANKARGOUDA PATIL
S/O. GOPAL PATIL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,









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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

5. SHRI YANKAPPA VADAKANNAVAR
S/O. RUDRAPPA VADAKANNAVAR
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT CHUCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

6. SHRI FAKIRAPPA BOMMANNAVAR
S/O. BHIMAPPA BOMMANNAVAR
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

7. SHRI BALAPPA VADAKANNAVAR
S/O. BHIMAPPA VADAKANNAVAR
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

8. SHRI SHEKAPPA HURKADLI
S/O. RUDRAPPA HURKADLI
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

9. SHRI MAYAPPA VATNAL
S/O. SOMAPPA VATNAL
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.

10. SHRI DYAMANNA VADAKANNAVAR
S/O. MARUTI VADAKANNAVAR
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


RESIDING AT CHUNCHANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591114.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURAJ MUTNAL S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND
QUASH ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC NO.2006/2023 (SAUNDATTI P.S. CRIME NO.166/2023)
REGISTERED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.
171(E) AND 171(F) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 98
OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 AS AGAINST PETITIONERS/
ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 10 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT
SAUNDATTI, THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF CHARGE SHEET AND
ENTIRE ORDER SHEET ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES C AND
D AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

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

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Suraj S.Mutnal, learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused No.1 to 10 and Sri Praveena Y.
Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent/State.

2. The petitioners/accused No.1 to 10 have 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.2006/2023 in connection
with Crime No.166/2023 of Saundatti Police Station, pending
on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Saundatti, Belagavi District, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 171E and 171F of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and Section 98 of the Karnataka
Police Act, 1963 “KP Act” for short).

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024



3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 22.04.2023 at 1:00 p.m., when FST Flying Squad on
patrolling duty in connection with Karnataka Vidhan Sabha
election within the jurisdiction of Teggihal village, he received
credible information that cookers were stored for the purpose
of distributing the same to voters in the constituency in the
land of one Gurulinga Siddappa Shingannavar bearing
Sy.No.187/2, owned by petitioner No.1. Upon receipt of
information, the complainant informed about the same to the
higher officials and secured his sub staff and panchas and
seized 1642 new cookers worth of Rs.21,32,958/- and
thereafter, lodged the complaint.

4. Taking exceptions to the same, the petitioners have
filed this petition.


5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the proceedings initiated under Section 171E of IPC is
illegal. The petitioners are falsely implicated in the web of
crime. Section 171E of IPC is a non-cognizable offence and the
police cannot investigate such case without prior permission of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of CrPC. It is
further contended that in absence of compliance with the
mandatory requirements prescribed under the said provision,
the investigation and consequential proceedings are initiated.
On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for allowing the
petition by quashing the entire proceedings.


6. Per contra , learned HCGP contended that the
respondent-State had appointed observers and after having
came to know that the accused persons have violated the Code
of Conduct of Election Commission, a complaint was registered
against the accused persons. He would also contend that after
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet
against the accused persons. Now the petitioners cannot
contend that the entire proceedings are illegal and as such, the
proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, learned HCGP prayed
for dismissal of the petition.


7. Perused the material available on record.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024



8. The first informant lodged a complaint against the
petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 171E of
IPC, which reads as under:
“171E. 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.Explanation.—
“Treating” means that form of bribery where the
gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment,
or provision.”


9. On careful perusal of the records, it discloses that
the Station House Officer registered First Information Report
without permission of the Jurisdictional Magistrate and
proceeded with the investigation for an offence punishable
under Section 171E of IPC. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused
persons. In turn, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of
the said offence. However, Section 171E of IPC is non-
cognizable in nature. Thus, the entire proceedings are also hit
by Section 155(2) of CrPC, which reads as under:
“Section 155(2) of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-
cognisable case without the order of a Magistrate

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


having power to try such case or commit the case
for trial.”


10. As could be seen from Section 155(2) of CrPC,
there is an absolute bar, which says that, ‘no police officer shall
investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a
Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case
for trial.’


11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there
is a clear violation of the procedure as established by law.
Learned HCCP does not dispute the irregularity committed by
the Police Officer as well as the cognizance taken by the
learned Magistrate.


12. Keeping in view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the cognizance taken
by the learned Magistrate appears to be an illegal and he ought
not to have taken the cognizance for the offence punishable
under Section 171E of IPC without compliance under Section
155(2) of CrPC. Further, the present case also stands covered
by the Judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Criminal Petition No.1560/2024 disposed of on

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


05.04.2024, wherein the Co-ordinated Bench at Para 4
observed as under:
“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:
(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:

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


“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
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

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


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.
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

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


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.
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”

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024


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.
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.”

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

(i) The criminal petition is allowed .

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17183
CRL.P No. 100781 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020035992024



(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.2006/2023
connection with Crime No.166/2023 of
Saundatti Police Station, on the file of
learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Saundatti, Belagavi District, for the offences
punishable under Section 171E and 171F of
IPC and Section 98 of the KP Act, insofar as
petitioners are concerned, are hereby
quashed.
In view of disposal of the criminal petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.



Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE

CLK
CT:GSM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15