Sir. Ravi Krishna Reddy v. State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:8732 CRL.P(No.(1264(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(12 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( CRIMINAL(PETITION(NO.(1264(OF(2026((482(Cr.PC)( /(528(BNSS)) BETWEEN:(

1., SIR.,RAVI,KRISHNA,REDDY, S/O,LATE,KRISHNA,REDDY,V,, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS,,

46.,GATEWAY,PARK.,NEW,TEMPLE,ROAD,, BHSV,MAPER,APART,, BANGALORE-,560047, AND,ALSO-,AT,RESIDING,NO-222,,, B-4.,THUNGABHADRA,BLOCK,, NATIONAL,GAMES,VILLAGE,, KORAMANGALA,BANGALORE,SOUTH,, Digitally VIVEKNAGAR,BENGALURU,, signedtiby KARNATAKA,560047,,VIJAYA0P Location: (AS,PER,AADHAR,ADDRESS,MENTIONED), HIGH0COURT OF KARNATAKA

2., MAHESH,A,V, S/O,VENKTASWAMY,, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS,,, NO.,44,ARALERI,VILLAGE.,, KASABA,HOBALI,MALUR,TALUK,PH,N,,, KOLAR,DISTRICT,PIN,563130,, (AS,PER,AADHAR,ADDRESS,MENTIONED), …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,SRINATHA,B.V.,,ADVOCATE), e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:8732 CRL.P(No.(1264(of(2026 AND:

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, BY,GUL,PET,POLICE,, REPRESENTED,BY,, STATE,PUBLIC,PROSECUTOR,, HIGH,COURT,BUILDINGS,,, BENGALURU,-,560,001,

2., SRI.,AMARAPPA, EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER,KOLAR,,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS,,PLAYING,SQUAD-9,, KOLAR,DISTRICT-,563,135, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,THEJESH,H.P.,,HCGP), , THIS,CRL.P,IS,FILED,U/S,482,CR.PC,(FILED,U/S,528, BNSS),BY,THE,ADVOCATE,FOR,THE,PETITIONER,PRAYING, THAT, THIS, HONOURABLE, COURT, MAY, BE, PLEASED, TO, QUASH, THE, ENTIRE, PROCEEDINGS, AGAINST, THE, PETITIONERS, IN, CC, NO.124/2025, NOW, WHICH, IS, PENDING, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, 1ST, ADDL.CIVIL, JUDGE, AND,JMFC,AT,KOLAR,CRIME,REGISTER,BY,GUL,PET,POLICE, FOR,THE,OFFENCE,P/U/S,171(H),R/W,34,IPC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS, DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV

ORAL ORDER

Sri. Thejesh H.P. learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

¶2The petitioners have sought to set aside the proceedings in C.C.No.134/2025, pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar in connection with FIR registered relating to offence punishable under Section 171(H) read with Section 34 IPC.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR has been registered on the basis of information of the respondent No. 2 and perusal of the FIR would reveal that the incident that is narrated is that, during the election to the Lok Sabha, as regards Kolar constituency, the petitioners along with others including about 25 workers were campaigning using a vehicle and had put up banners on the vehicle, and had also fixed microphones and loud speakers and were distributing pamphlets to the public in relation to election campaign. On being questioned by the Police Authorities, it was found

that they had obtained permission only for use of vehicles and no permission was obtained for activities of distribution of pamphlets and collection of funds.

¶4Accordingly, the respondent-Police Authorities have taken steps purportedly on the ground of violation of directions of the Election Commission relating to the Model Code of Conduct. Upon evidence collected by way of photographs, initially NCR 434/2024 was registered and after obtaining oral permission investigation has been commenced is the case.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a narration of the incident at para 10 of the FIR, does not correlate with the filing of charge sheet for offence under 171(H) r/w Section 34 of IPC. Attention is drawn to the charge sheet filed and insofar as the petitioners are concerned, offence that is made out is 171(H) of IPC as well as Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

¶6Petitioners counsel further submits that 171(H) of IPC relates to payments in connection with election activity and submits that where expenditure is incurred for holding a public meeting or relating to advertisement, or for publication, or for purpose of promoting or procuring election of such candidate and such expenditure is incurred without the authority of the candidate, then 171(H) of IPC would come into play and in the present case the incident makes out the allegation of petitioners not having taken permission for distribution of pamphlets etc. Accordingly, the offence made out in the charge sheet has nothing to do with the narration of the incident.

¶7Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State is unable to controvert such submission that the incident made out cannot be relatable to the offence under 171(H) of IPC. Section 171H of IPC reads as follows:

"171H. Illegal Payments in connection with an election: Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon

any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees: Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate."

¶8Merely 171(H) of IPC relates to incurring of expenditure, on account of holding a public meeting, advertisement, publication or any other act for promoting the election of the candidate without permission from the candidate. However, the FIR has been lodged in respect of the incident which is a detailed at column No.10 of the FIR.

¶9Column-10 makes out a case of distributing pamphlets and putting a banner in the vehicle without permission. Section 171(H) of IPC ingredients are not made out clearly in the FIR lodged and investigation made and charge sheet filed. Making out a case under 171(H) of IPC, reflects total non-application of mind. The petition deserves to be allowed. Further section 123(7) of the

Representation of People's Act, deals with a different scenario and has no application to the facts of the case.

¶10Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.134/2025, pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar is hereby set aside. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24