Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP MLA Munirathna Over Allegation Of Forcing People To Wear Party Shawl During Elections

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP MLA from Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Munirathna, holding that the allegations of forcing a person to wear the shawl of a particular party during elections do not constitute an offence under Section 171C of IPC [threatening or interfering with voters] since the proceedings were vitiated for want of a complaint by the competent authority under Section 195 of the CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar)247]

It was alleged by the complainant, who is a Congress worker, that the petitioner MLA had abducted him during the time of elections in 2024, forced him to wear the shawl of BJP, and took photographs of it to blackmail him further.

The MLA was charged for offences under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 149 (unlawful assembly), 363 (kidnapping), and 171C (undue influence at elections) of the IPC, registered at Nandini Lay out Police Station and the proceedings were pending before ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the identical issue had been considered by a Coordinate Bench in M. Mohan Kumar and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Another, where the Court had quashed similar proceedings.

The Coordinate Bench had in Mohan Kumar relied upon the judgment in Rajashekharananda Swamiji v. State of Karnataka, which held that for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC (disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant), the complaint must be filed by the officer who issued the promulgation order or an officer above his rank.

“We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”, the Coordinate Bench had observed in Rajashekharananda Swamiji.

The Court noted that the offence under Section 171C of the IPC, which deals with undue influence at elections requires a complaint by the competent authority under Section 195 CrPC.

“…In the light of the issue standing completely answered by the judgment rendered by this Court as to what would become the offence under Section 171C permitting further investigation, the petition deserves to succeed”, Justice Nagaprasanna observed.

The Court further noted that the offence under Section 363 of the IPC (punishment for kidnapping a minor) was loosely laid against the petitioner.

“…Insofar as the other offences are concerned, the other offences are also so loosely laid against the petitioner as the offence under Section 363 is abduction of a minor. There is no case of abduction of a minor in the case at hand”, the Court observed.

The Court thus allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.397/2024 (Old Crime No.111/2024) of Nandini Layout Police Station.

“…On all these, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice,,,”,Justice Naga Prasanna concluded.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Narasimharaju, while HCGP Waheeda M.M. appeared for the State.

Case Title: Munirathna v. State by Nandini Layout Police Station & Anr.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5045 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)247

Click Here To Read/Download Order