BJP chief JP Nadda had challenged the case before the Karnataka High Court (File)
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a case against BJP president JP Nadda in connection with a speech delivered in May in the state's Vijayapura district ahead of the assembly elections, and called it a "reckless registration of crime."
A complaint, accusing Mr Nadda of threatening voters at a public meeting by saying that they would lose the benefits of central schemes if the BJP was not voted to power, was lodged by an election officer on May 9 under Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence.
It was then forwarded to the Magistrate, who granted permission for the registration of an FIR.
Subsequently, JP Nadda challenged the case before the High Court.
Justice M Nagarpasanna, hearing arguments of JP Nadda's counsel and the government advocate, said that the allegations were vague.
"The allegation is that the Code of Conduct was violated by the petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on May 7 by threatening 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," he said.
The copy of the complaint was quoted by the HC in its judgment which only states that JP Nadda had violated the code of conduct and does not make mention of any details.
The court further observed that allowing 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 that three of the seven postulates laid down by the Supreme Court in it were applicable in the current case.
"The first postulate is that where the allegations are taken at 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 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 High Court quoted the three postulates and said these were "completely applicable to the facts of the case at hand."
Since the High Court decided the case on merits, it 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.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)