Karnataka High Court Quashes 'Reckless, Vague' Case Against BJP Chief JP Nadda For 'Wooing' Voters

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against National President of Bharatiya Janata Party and a former Union Minister, Jagath Prakash Nadda for allegedly wooing and threatening voters during an election rally held in May ahead of Assembly elections.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna found the FIR under Section 171-F of IPC was 'recklessly' registered against Nadda on the basis of a 'loosely laid offence' in a 'vague complaint'.

The provision penalizes 'undue influence or personation at an election'.

Court observed,

“Permitting further proceedings would be putting a premium upon reckless registration of crime against the petitioner. Thus, this should be nipped in the bud by entertaining the petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as the complaint itself nowhere makes out any offence against the petitioner that would become punishable under Section 171F of the IPC.”

As per the complaint, on May 7, Nadda addressed a public meeting organised by the BJP at Harapanahalli Assembly Constituency of Vijayanagar District, wherein he wooed or threatened voters. Recordings of the public meeting were published in electronic media and social media. The Police then registered a crime with Magistrate's permission.

Nadda's counsel argued that the complaint would not indicate any ingredient of Section 171F of the IPC and the very registration of crime suffers from want of bona fides. It was submitted the Magistrate accorded permission without any application of mind.

Prosecution opposed the plea saying if the Court were to quash the proceedings without permitting investigation, it would be contrary to several judgments of the Apex Court which hold that the complaint cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of offences. Further, even if the Court wants to set aside registration of crime on the ground that the Magistrate has not applied his mind, the matter could be remitted back to the hands of the Magistrate for appropriate action in accordance with law, it was contended.

Findings:

At the outset, the bench noted that Section 171F requires two ingredients to be present viz., undue influence or personation at an election. Undue influence and personation are defined under Sections 171C and 171D.

Referring to the complaint the court said, “If the complaint is considered on the touchstone of the contents of Sections 171C, 171D and 171F, what would unmistakably emerge, is a reckless registration of crime and a loosely laid offence.”

Further it held, “The complaint nowhere narrates that the petitioner has unduly interfered with the free exercise of anyone’s electoral right, nor does it narrates that the petitioner is guilty of personation as defined under Section 171D of the IPC in the elections. An incident to become an offence under Section 171F, the minimum requirement is narration in the complaint of the ingredients of undue influence or personation.”

Court also found the allegations in the complaint to be "vague" and said, “On such a vague complaint which is loosely made against the petitioner, the crime in Crime No.89 of 2023 is registered and the damocles sword of crime is left hanging on the petitioner projecting it to be an offence.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition saying, “If on the aforesaid facts further investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner it would become a classic case of permitting investigation in a reckless registration of crime which on the face of it, would become an abuse of the process of law.”

Case Title: Jagath Prakash Nadda And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition no. 5488 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 316

Date of Order: 07-08-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Uday Holla for Advocates Vinod Kumar, Pavan Narang Neeraj and Pooja Savadatti for Petitioner.

SPP Belliyappa for R1.

Click Here To Read/Download Order