SUNIL GILBERT BAPTIST Vs. STATE OF KARNTAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.938/2008 on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur, in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 72 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 171(1)(A) of the Representation of People Act, and Section 171(E) of the IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Rural Police Station stating that in front of the house of this petitioner, an election meeting was held on 4.5.2008 at about 6.20 p.m. and the persons who had gathered were canvassing on behalf of one S.L.Bhoje Gowda and the complainant also noticed distribution of chudidar materials and seized about 27 of the said material. It is alleged in the complaint that without any permission from the concerned authorities to conduct the election meeting, there has been violation of the election code of conduct.

(2.) AT the outset, Sri.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint ought to have been filed either by the Deputy Commissioner or the Tahsildar concerned and not by the Sub-Inspector of Police and consequently, the complaint itself instituted is vitiated by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and the entire proceedings, therefore, is liable to be quashed only on this ground. Certainly it is submitted that the Government had withdrawn the cases against the persons belonging to Sangha Parivar against whom similar allegations were made and referred to the order passed by the Government in this regard, which is produced at annexure-D to the petition. Reliance is also placed on the Apex Court's decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 3718 (C MUNIAPPAN and ORS. V/S. STATE OF TAMIL NADU) in this connection.Submission therefore made is that, singling out the petitioner and letting out the other persons who had also alleged of the similar offences amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.

(3.) THE aforesaid decision applies to the case on hand with all fours and therefore on this ground alone the proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed, apart from the submission made by petitioner's counsel, namely that the respondent has singled out the petitioner whereas withdrawn the complaint against the other group referred to in annexure-D.