Karnataka High Court and JP Nadda facebook
News

Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against BJP President JP Nadda for 2023 election speech

Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the FIR after noting that no offence was made out in the case.

Ayesha Arvind

The Karnataka High Court Thursday quashed a first information report (FIR) registered last year against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national president JP Nadda over allegations of attempting to exercise undue influence during an election rally in Haveri district in Karnataka.

Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the FIR after noting that no offence was made out in the case.

The counsel for Nadda had argued that if the Court were to examine the alleged remarks made by Nadda in the said election rally, it will see that no offence under Section 171C (undue influence at elections) and Section 171F (punishment fort undue influence at elections) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were made out.

Justice M Nagaprasanna

“He (Nadda) said, 'Karnataka mein BJP ki ganga behti rahe. Main aapse vote maangne aya hoon. Modi ji ke Ashirwad se vanchit na rahen'.He was merely urging the public to vote for his party. There is no question of any undue influence. There is nothing in the case,” the counsel argued.

Justice Nagaprasanna remarked orally that there was nothing in the speech and “nothing in the case.”

The Court accordingly quashed the FIR.

The FIR against the BJP party chief was registered following a speech Nadda made on April 19, 2023 at the Shiggaon Taluk playground while addressing an election rally.

Election Officer Lakshman Nandi, the complainant in the case, had alleged that Nadda had threatened voters and said that if they did not support the BJP, they will be deprived of the largesse from the Union government.

Gujarat High Court rejects Pakistani man’s plea for custody of minor son brought to India by mother

Rohini Sindhuri IAS tells Supreme Court she doesn't want to settle case against Roopa Moudgil IPS

Delhi High Court raises eyebrows over use of Proton Mail

Proposed Amendments to the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it? - Part II

Appointment of Advocate General in Jammu & Kashmir: Whose prerogative?

SCROLL FOR NEXT