The Karnataka High Court on Thursday passed an interim order directing the police not to take any coercive action against BJP leader Ravi Patil and his two supporters, Shankar Birappa Naik and Prashant Mundimani, in a case relating to alleged attempts to delete the names of 198 Muslim voters from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Belagavi. Justice Venkatesh Naik T, sitting at the Dharwad Bench, issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by the accused seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Market Police, Belagavi.
The Court observed that the matter required further examination and issued notice to the State government as well as Meerasab Sanadi, a Congress worker and the complainant in the case. The police were directed to file their statement of objections along with the latest investigation report before the next date of hearing.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T specifically ordered, 'Till then, the respondent-police/IO shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners,' thereby granting interim protection from arrest or any coercive measures during the pendency of the plea.
The FIR alleges that Ravi Patil, along with approximately 20 to 25 individuals, conspired to target voters belonging to the Muslim community and sought the deletion of 198 names from the electoral roll during the SIR process. The petitioners, however, contested the allegations, arguing that filing objections during the electoral roll revision process—including those concerning duplicate or multiple entries—cannot, by itself, constitute the offences alleged in the FIR.
In their defence, the petitioners relied upon the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the Election Commission’s guidelines for the Special Intensive Revision process. They maintained that the mere act of raising objections during the revision exercise does not amount to criminality under the penal provisions invoked.
The petitioners further contended that the FIR fails to identify any specific forged document or signature allegedly created or used by them in furtherance of the alleged offence. On the charge of cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, they argued that the FIR does not disclose any dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction, which they submitted is an essential ingredient for constituting the offence.
The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the BNS, including Sections 190, 192, 3(5), 3(7), 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 353, and 61(2). The petitioners challenged the applicability of these sections, asserting that the allegations lack the necessary factual and legal foundation to sustain the charges.
It was noted during the proceedings that a Belagavi court had already granted anticipatory bail to Ravi Patil on October 3 in connection with the same case. The Karnataka High Court has now posted the matter for further hearing on October 13.
Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam appeared for the petitioners, assisted by Advocates Shubham F Kusalapur and Deveeraj T Bastwadkar. The Court’s interim direction reflects a cautious approach, allowing the investigation to proceed while ensuring that the petitioners are not subjected to coercive police action pending a detailed examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.