Karnataka High Court sets aside Magistrate's permission to investigate election offence against Tejasvi Surya

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an the order by Magistrate granting permission for investigation against Bengaluru South Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya, for an alleged offence under the Representation of People Act [Tejasvi Surya v. State of Karnataka]..The Bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that appropriate procedure had not been followed and, therefore, remitted the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration."In light of the same, the endorsement of the Magistrate dated 18.04.2019 is set aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of the informant being referred to the Magistrate in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C... the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether permission for investigation needs to be granted," the Court said. .Tejasvi Surya had moved the High Court seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR), chargesheet and entire criminal proceedings pending before an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru. The case against him was that one Sri Narayanappa had printed about 2,000 copies of pamphlets on behalf of Surya, and distributed them without mentioning the name and address of the printer and publisher. This is an offence under Section 127A (restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters) of the Representation of People Act. .This information was submitted to the Magistrate requesting for permission to commence investigation, who endorsed it and permitted the same. .The petitioner submitted that the endorsement was not in consonance with Section 155(2) (police officer to not investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of Magistrate) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and was in violation of the directions passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State Of Karnataka. .Further, although the offences in the FIR were under Sections 127(2) (disturbances at election meetings) and 127A (restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters) of the Representation of People Act, and Section 171F (punishment for undue influence or personation at an election) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Surya was charged only under Section 127A in the chargesheet. Moreover, the requirement under Section 127A is only with regard to the person who prints the material, and cannot lead to proceedings against Surya, who was the candidate, it was submitted. .The High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the permission given by the Magistrate was contrary to the mandate under Section 155(2) of the Act, as it did not comply with the procedural formalities regarding the order sheet and endorsement. The informant should have been referred to the Magistrate after the officer in-charge of the police station enters the substance of the information in the book mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to then examine the informant, the complaint given by him, and proceed further, the High Court noted. .As the procedure laid down in the judgement was not followed, the permission by the Magistrate was set aside and the High Court relegated the matter to the stage where the informant is referred to the Magistrate, under Section 155(1) (information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases) of the CrPC. .The High Court noted that the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether permission for investigation needs to be granted. Hence, the other contentions raised by Surya did not need to be addressed by the Court, and would be considered by the Magistrate before granting permission under the CrPC. .Advocates SS Srinivasa Rao and Sudarshan Suresh represented the petitioner, while Government Pleader IS Vishwa Murthy represented the State..[Read Order]