‘Reckless registration of crime’: Karnataka HC quashes case against Nadda
An election officer had filed a vague criminal complaint against the BJP chief, alleging that he had threatened voters during an election speech
The High Court of Karnataka, terming it a “reckless registration of crime”, has quashed the criminal proceedings in a case registered against BJP president JP Nadda in connection with a speech delivered in Vijayapura district ahead of the Assembly elections.
A complaint, alleging that Nadda threatened voters at a public meeting by stating that they would lose the benefits of central schemes if the BJP was not voted to power in the state, was lodged by an election officer at Harapanahalli Police Station on May 9 under Section 171F, a non-cognizable offence.
It was then forwarded to the magistrate, who granted permission for the registration of an FIR. Nadda had challenged it before the high court.
Justice M Nagarpasanna, who heard the arguments of Nadda’s counsel and the government advocate, said the allegations were vague. “The allegation is that Code of Conduct has been violated by the petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on 07-05-2023 by threatening the voters. The complaint is so vague that it would daunt vagueness itself. 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,” Justice Nagarpasanna said.
The high court in its judgment quoted a copy of the complaint, which only states that Nadda violated the code of conduct and does not make mention any details.
“Abuse of law”
The high court further observed that allowing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of law. “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.”
Citing a Supreme Court judgment in a case, the high court said three of the seven postulates laid down by the apex court in it were applicable in the current case.
“The first postulate is that where the allegations are taken on their face value, they would not make out a case against the accused. The fifth postulate is that where the allegations in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable, it would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. The seventh postulate is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted with a view to spite the accused, such proceedings should be quashed,” the court quoted the three postulates and said these were “completely applicable to the facts of the case at hand”.
Since it decided the case on merit, the high court said it was not necessary to remit it back to the magistrate court. “In the light of the issue being answered on the merit of the matter itself, the submission with regard to non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate while granting permission for registration of FIR and on that score matter being remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration, would pale into insignificance,” the judge said allowing the petition and quashing the entire investigation pending before the lower court.
(With agency inputs)
