Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 10 Over 1,642 Cookers Allegedly Meant For Voters, As Police Probed Non-Cognizable Bribery Charge Without Magistrate’s Order

In brief

The question

Whether the police could investigate the alleged non-cognizable offence under Section 171E IPC without an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed, insofar as the petitioners were concerned, the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 2006/2023 arising from Crime No. 166/2023, including the charges under Sections 171E and 171F IPC and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act.

It also directed

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as no longer surviving.

01Facts

During election-related patrolling on 22 April 2023, a flying squad received information that cookers were stored on land owned by petitioner No. 1 for distribution to voters. The police seized 1,642 cookers and registered Crime No. 166/2023; after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 171E and 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 3–5

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that Section 171E IPC is non-cognizable and that the police had investigated without obtaining the Magistrate’s order required by Section 155(2) CrPC.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 3–5

The High Court noted that the FIR was registered and investigation conducted without such an order.

p. 7 · ¶ 9

02Issues

i.Whether the police could investigate the alleged non-cognizable offence under Section 171E IPC without an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–10

ii.Whether the proceedings against the petitioners, including those for the other offences charged, should be quashed in light of the alleged non-compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 11–13

03Law Applied

Section 155(2) CrPC prohibits a police officer from investigating a non-cognizable case without an order from a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try or commit the case.

p. 7 · ¶ 9 · p. 8 · ¶ 10

The Court treated Section 171E IPC as a non-cognizable offence and relied on the rule that investigation into it required prior Magistrate authorisation.

p. 7 · ¶ 9

It also followed the approach of a coordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No. 1560/2024, which addressed the ingredients of bribery under Sections 171B and 171E IPC and quashed proceedings where the alleged facts did not disclose the offence.

pp. 8–13 · ¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 155

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 161

KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963. Section 98

Representation of the People Act, 1951 Section 8 Section 123 Section 25 Section 29 Section 133 Section 120

04Reasoning

The Court found that the police had registered the FIR and proceeded with the investigation for the Section 171E IPC offence without first obtaining the Magistrate’s order required by Section 155(2) CrPC.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–11

It considered this a violation of the prescribed procedure and noted that the State did not dispute the procedural irregularity or the cognizance taken by the Magistrate.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 9–11

Applying the coordinate Bench’s decision and the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioners could not continue.

pp. 8–13 · ¶ 12–13