Introduction:
In the case R Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy v. State of Karnataka [CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1369 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2993 OF 2024], the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against legislator R. Akhanda Srinivas Murthy and co-petitioner T.N.R. Rohit, who were accused of violating election laws after cartons of pressure cookers bearing Murthy’s sticker were discovered during the 2023 Karnataka State Assembly Elections. A single-judge bench comprising Justice M. Nagagaprasanna ruled that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 171E and 171F of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court observed that proceeding with the case would amount to an abuse of the legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Murthy D. Naik, contended that the magistrate’s permission granted under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. was granted without proper application of mind. They argued that the informant had not personally approached the magistrate seeking permission, and instead, the Station House Officer (SHO) had done so. Additionally, they asserted that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they did not amount to offences under the cited provisions. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.P. Nadda and the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Vijesh Pillai to argue that mere possession of items with election-related stickers did not establish bribery under the election laws.
On the other hand, the prosecution, led by Additional Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B.N. Jagadeesha, argued that it was not mandatory for the informant to personally approach the magistrate for permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence. They maintained that the discovery of pressure cookers with stickers bearing the petitioner’s name indicated an attempt to bribe voters. They further submitted that since the charge sheet had already been filed, the matter should proceed to trial rather than be quashed at a preliminary stage.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the content of the complaint, the Court held that it failed to meet the essential elements required to establish bribery or corrupt electoral practices. Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in J.P. Nadda, the allegations did not demonstrate any conclusive link between the discovered items and an attempt to induce voters. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the procedural lapse regarding the informant’s approach to the magistrate was disregarded, the fundamental issue remained that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the law.
The Court rejected the prosecution’s contention that the case should proceed to trial and emphasized that allowing such proceedings would be a misuse of judicial resources. It further stated that merely finding pressure cookers with election stickers did not constitute a punishable offence in the absence of clear evidence of voter inducement. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, holding that further prosecution would be legally untenable and an abuse of the process of law.