Tag: 夜上海论坛RWH

first_imgNews UpdatesKarnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Actor Prakash Raj For Alleged Violation of Election Model Code Of Conduct [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK13 Oct 2020 6:15 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against actor Prakash Raj in November 2019, allegedly for violation of the Model Code of Conduct for elections, by campaigning at a public gathering, without requisite permissions. The Bench of Justice Sreeniwas Harish Kumar dismissed the application moved by Prakash under Section 482 of CrPC while stating, “the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against actor Prakash Raj in November 2019, allegedly for violation of the Model Code of Conduct for elections, by campaigning at a public gathering, without requisite permissions. The Bench of Justice Sreeniwas Harish Kumar dismissed the application moved by Prakash under Section 482 of CrPC while stating, “the petitioner does not dispute his participation in the protest meet, and in regard to the allegations made against him, the prosecution has to provide evidence. Bare denial of the charge sheet cannot be a ground for interference under section 482 of the Code.” Background It is alleged that Prakash, intending to contest in the Lok Sabha 2019 elections, participated at a public gathering, and spoke about the elections. Significantly, the gathering was supposed to be a peaceful protest meet, however, a member of the election vigilance squad reported that a group of 25 to 30 people were gathered, causing obstruction to pedestrians. Since the report did not disclose a cognizable offence, the SHO registered it as a NCR and then placed it before the Magistrate seeking permission to register FIR. Subsequently, the Magistrate passed an order to register the NCR as a private complaint (PCR) and proceed further according to section 156(3) of the Code. Accordingly, the police registered the complaint for the offences under section 35 of the Karnataka Police Act and section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. Contentions The Petitioner had sought quashing of the FIR on two counts: First, he argued that when the investigating officer sought permission of the Magistrate for registration of FIR and to investigate the matter, he ordered the said NCR to be registered as a private complaint under section 200 of the Code. However, there was no supporting affidavit of the first informant. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 287, to argue that whenever a private complaint was presented before a Magistrate, it should be accompanied by an affidavit. Secondly, it was submitted that when the protest meet was held, Prakash had not filed his nomination to contest in the Lok Sabha elections. He just participated in the meeting as a citizen and was not the organizer of the protest meet. Findings While considering the first line of argument set by the Petitioner, the Court noted that the Magistrate “committed a mistake” by ordering the NCR to be registered as a private complaint and therefore the Petitioner had argued that supporting affidavit was necessary to be filed. However, the Court proceeded to observe that what is made out by the Petitioner is a “procedural irregularity, which cannot be a ground for invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code”. It observed that the Petitioner had failed to point out the substantial injustice caused to him on account of the procedural error. The Court clarified that the Complainant’s affidavit is insisted upon to prevent unwarranted harassment of persons by imputing malicious allegations and with a view to bind the complainant to the allegations that he has made. As regards the second point of argument is concerned, the Court opined that bare denial of the charge sheet cannot be a ground for interference under Section 482 of the Code. Click Here To Download Order Read Order Next Storylast_img read more