The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against BJP President JP Nadda filed during the election campaign in the state earlier this year, calling the complaint vague.
The single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that allowing further investigation into the case will become a classic case of the abuse of the legal process, and will expose how a reckless registration of crime was allowed.
“The complaint does not say that the petitioner had interfered with the free exercise of anyone’s electoral right. It also doesn’t say that the petitioner is guilty of personation as defined under Section 171D of the IPC in the elections”, justice M Nagaprasanna stated.
“The allegation is that the Code of Conduct has been violated by the petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on 07-05-2023 by threatening the 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,” the Court stated, as per LawBeat.
JP Nadda had filed a writ petition in the case against the FIR. The court allowed it, and added that considering Sections 171C, 171D, and 171F of the IPC if the complaint and FIR is allowed, what would unmistakably emerge is, “reckless registration of crime and a loosely laid offense”.
The FIR against Nadda was filed at Harapanahalli police station on May 9, accusing Nadda of violating the model code of conduct and ‘threatening voters’.
On May 7, JP Nadda held an election rally in Karnataka’s Vijayanagara district. In his speech at Harapanahalli’s IB Circle, the BJP chief reportedly stated that if the BJP loses the elections, the voters may be deprived of the benefits of central government schemes.
The complaint against Nadda was registered by the officials of the Election Vigilance Division in Karnataka, accusing Nadda of violating the model code of conduct. During the hearing in the High Court, the state government’s counsel tried to pursue the court to allow an investigation and remit the case back to the magistrate. However, the court ruled that the complaint itself is too vague and asserted that the case should be nipped in the bud.
