Under the KOPD Act, an office-bearer cannot be prosecuted alone without arraigning the entity.

Respondent No. 2, an Assistant Revenue Officer, complained that banners and flexes had been erected without statutory permission near Mekhri Circle, Bengaluru, in connection with a BJP State Executives Meeting held on 27 January 2024.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner, described as an office secretary of the party, was responsible.

Police registered Crime No. 32/2024 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951 and 1981.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the FIR could be sustained against the petitioner individually when the alleged offending company or association had not been arraigned as an accused, having regard to Section 6 of the KOPD Act.

2. Whether the complaint and FIR, on their face, disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner.

Section 3 of the KOPD Act concerns the alleged disfigurement of an open place, while Section 6 addresses offences by companies and the liability of persons in charge of, and responsible for, the company’s business.

The Court treated Section 6 as requiring the company or association alleged to have committed the offence to be arraigned, and held that vicarious criminal liability does not arise unless authorised by statute.

Relying on a coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P. No. 2208/2019 connected with Crl.P. No. 7959/2018, dated 19 September 2026, the Court considered failure to arraign the company a ground for quashing in the circumstances before it.

It also relied on Mohammed Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, for the principle that a court considering quashing may examine the FIR and relevant attending circumstances, and need not confine its scrutiny to the complaint’s bare averments.

The FIR named only the petitioner, whom the complaint described as an office secretary of the BJP; it did not allege the offence against, or arraign, the party as the principal offender.

Applying its interpretation of Section 6 and the coordinate Bench decision, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not be held vicariously liable in the absence of the company or association as an accused.

It further considered the complaint and surrounding circumstances and found that, even if the FIR’s allegations were accepted at face value, they did not establish the alleged offences against the petitioner.