[Undue Influence At Elections] Mere Endorsement On Police Requisition Not Sufficient To Prosecute Karnataka Law Minister JC Madhuswamy: High Court

It was alleged that on 02.12.2019 in front of Priya Darshini Hotel, there was a meeting and in which certain statements were made by Madhuswamy which constitute violation of law as amounting to influencing the electorate on the basis of caste and religion.

After the information was made out to the police authorities, a requisition was made to the Magistrate by the police authorities requesting for permission to investigate. Upon such request, the Magistrate endorsed the requisition.

The Law Minister contended that the endorsement issued by the magistrate court directing further investigation is not a proper procedure to be followed in light of the guidelines made in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka- ILR 2020 KAR 630.

Further, the act of granting permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence must be with due application of mind and that would become clear from the guideline No.IV in paragraph No.20 of the above referred judgment.

The bench noted that the requisition before the Court made by the Police Authorities contains an endorsement on the requisition itself. Such endorsement does not amount to a judicial order and proper procedure to be followed in terms of the direction passed in Paragraph No.20 at (ii) in the case of Vaggeppa (supra).

Referring to the guidelines in the judgment relied upon, the bench said, "In terms of the guidelines at (ii), the Court is directed to place a separate order sheet and the order regarding requisition must be made in the order sheet, which must be a part of the proceedings before the Court. Noticing that the said procedure is not followed, the proceedings before the Magistrate is liable to be quashed."

It added, "It is for the complainant to pursue further proceedings and if the proceedings are pursued further, needless to state that in terms of the mandate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. while taking permission for investigation of non-cognizable offence, the informant must be referred to the Magistrate. If permission is to be granted, it is open for the Magistrate to either grant or not grant permission and as specified in guideline (iv) as extracted above, it is for the magistrate to apply his mind and see whether it is a case to be investigated."

Case Title: J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6535/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

Date of Order: 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE AND RAJATH, ADVOCATE for petitioner; KIRAN JAVALI, SPP-I A/W ROHITH B.J, HCGP FOR R1; R2; SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL AS AMICUS CURIAE