Karnataka HC quashes criminal proceedings against JDS MLA MT Krishnappa

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings against JDS MLA from Turuvekere constituency MT Krishnappa and local party unit Chief Swamy in connection with a criminal case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the order passed by the magistrate depicts non application of mind.

On August 24, 2020, H S Vishwanath, president of Turuvekere unit of BJP, had filed a complaint alleging that Krishnappa, who was then an ex- MLA, along with Swamy, had put up banners across the town, denigrating Masala Jayaram, the then sitting BJP MLA. On October 17, 2020, the local court had issued summons for the offence alleged under IPC section 504 and 34. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the special court for elected representatives, Bengaluru.

The petitioners argued that the magistrate's order depicts non application of mind. The high court observed that since the offences alleged are admittedly non-cognizable, the jurisdictional police made a non-cognizable report. The magistrate in his order granting permission to the police to register an FIR had stated, “By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law."

Justice Nagaprasanna said the magistrate’s order bears no application of mind. “These acts of passing orders, which bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in a docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time and again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge in passing such orders. The Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court further said, “It is in fact an order (in the instant case) which has no reasons. Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on application of mind. It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.”