Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 22.07.2026
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Proceedings Against Sitting MLA
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha-Bombay High Court. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Criminal Petition No. 12840 of 2024, delivered a significant judgment on July 11, 2025, quashing criminal proceedings against Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi, a sitting MLA from Navalgund.
The case revolved around alleged violations of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal principles involved, and the broader implications of the court’s decision.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi, was accused under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Section 3 of the Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, based on an FIR registered at Navalgund Police Station (Crime No. 79/2023). The allegations centered on the purported employment or exploitation of a child, which both statutes strictly prohibit.
The trial court, after considering the evidence, concluded that Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act was not applicable to the facts of the case. However, it refused to discharge the petitioner under Section 3 of the 1986 Act, holding that the petitioner was involved in the process, even though actual employment was not established.
Legal Principles Involved
Section 79, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
This section penalizes anyone who engages a child in employment or bondage for exploitation, or withholds their earnings. The law requires clear evidence of employment or exploitation for prosecution.
Section 3, Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
This provision prohibits the employment of children in any occupation or process, with certain exceptions (such as helping family enterprises outside hazardous occupations). Actual employment must be established for the section to apply.
Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC
Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the discharge of an accused if, upon reviewing the case record and hearing the accused, the court finds that the allegations do not constitute the alleged offence.
The High Court’s Reasoning
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, presiding over the petition, observed that:
- The trial court had already found Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act inapplicable.
- The trial court erred in refusing discharge under Section 3 of the 1986 Act, as there was no evidence of actual employment of a child.
- The necessary precondition for prosecution under both statutesβproof of employment or exploitationβwas not met.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the discharge application, quashing all proceedings against the petitioner.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal prosecution must be based on clear statutory grounds and supported by evidence. Courts must ensure that all legal ingredients of an offence are satisfied before allowing a case to proceed.
The decision also highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution, especially in cases involving public figures.
Conclusion
The High Court of Karnataka’s order in Criminal Petition No. 12840 of 2024 serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and strict adherence to statutory requirements in criminal law. By quashing the proceedings against the MLA, the court has clarified the evidentiary standards necessary for prosecution under child protection laws, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
Source: Karnataka High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
