LI Network
Published on: 21 August 2023 at 16:00 IST
The Karnataka High Court has invalidated the legal proceedings associated with a case lodged against J P Nadda, the President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), following allegations of delivering a contentious speech prior to the May assembly elections in Vijayapura district.
The court criticized the case as a “reckless registration of crime” based on absurd allegations.
The complaint stemmed from Nadda’s purported threat to voters during a public gathering, implying that they would forfeit the benefits of central schemes if the BJP did not secure their votes.
This complaint, filed by an election officer at the Harapanahalli police station on May 9, was filed under Section 171F, which pertains to a non-cognizable offense.
The case was subsequently elevated to a Magistrate who approved the registration of an FIR (First Information Report).
In response, Nadda challenged the case before the High Court, where Justice M Nagarpasanna recently considered the arguments presented by Nadda’s legal counsel and the government advocate.
The court criticized the vague nature of the allegations, remarking that the complaint lacked clarity and precision.
The allegations against Nadda were related to a supposed breach of the Code of Conduct by making threats during his speech on May 7, 2023, yet the complaint itself was so vague that it bordered on being incomprehensible.
Quoting the content of the complaint, the High Court indicated that it simply stated Nadda had violated the code of conduct without providing any specific details.
The court further remarked that continuing with the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of legal process, given the flimsiness of the allegations.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court indicated that three out of seven principles established by the Apex Court were pertinent to the present case.
These principles included the fact that the allegations, if taken at face value, would not constitute a case against the accused; that the allegations were so absurd and implausible that they warranted quashing the proceedings; and that if a criminal proceeding was maliciously instituted to harm the accused, it should be quashed.
The High Court held that these principles were entirely applicable to the current circumstances. As the court arrived at a verdict on the case’s merits, it determined that there was no need to refer the matter back to the Magistrate court.
Concluding its decision, the court stated, “In light of the issue being addressed on the substance of the matter itself, the argument regarding the lack of application of reasoning by the Magistrate when permitting the registration of the FIR, and the subsequent suggestion to remit the matter back to the Magistrate for reconsideration, lose significance.” Thus, the court granted the petition, nullifying the entire investigation that was underway in the lower court.
