Karnataka High Court
Vrushanka Bhat K vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6804
CRL.P No. 11177 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11177 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
VRUSHANKA BHAT K
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.106, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
VIDHANASOUDHA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K 2. N. G. DINESH
Location: High I/C REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION,
Court of Karnataka
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR DATED 16.05.2022
REGISTERED BY I RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.37/2022 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 39th ACMM COURT, BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.447, 505(2) OF IPC AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN, CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR 16.05.2022
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6804
CRL.P No. 11177 of 2023
REGISTERED BY I RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.37/2022 BY I
RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED AS HEREIN AS ANNEXURE A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.37/2022 registered by Vidhana Soudha Police Station on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 505(2) of IPC and also charge sheet in C.C No.25611/2023 pending on the file of XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered FIR, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is said to be taken some videos at Court Hall No.2 of the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench -3- NC: 2024:KHC:6804 CRL.P No. 11177 of 2023 at Bengaluru. After registering FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet, which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended on the ground that for the offence under Section 505 of Cr.P.C., the police cannot file charge sheet without obtaining sanction from the State Government and the Court also shall not take cognizance without sanction order as provided under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the FIR.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State has fairly conceded that no sanction was obtained before prosecuting the case, and recently, the police have requested for the State Government for obtaining the sanction to prosecute the case. The investigation officer also said to be present before the Court. The learned High Court Government Pleader got instruction from the Investigating Officer that request has been made for obtaining sanction. A copy of the requisition letter is also produced by the High Court Government Pleader.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6804 CRL.P No. 11177 of 2023
6. Heard the Learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records.
8. Perusal of the records indicates that the FIR was registered on 16.05.2022, against the unknown persons. During investigation, the police traced out the petitioner who was taking the video and web hosted in social media. Accordingly, the Registrar (Computers) of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, filed the aforesaid complaint.
9. Of course, there is offence made out in the FIR for registering the non cognizable case. However, the police are required to obtain sanction prior to filing of the charge sheet and the Magistrate ought to have verified as to whether the sanction was taken or not, but without the application of mind, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons.
10. Perusal of Section 196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., it reads as under:
" No Court shall take cognizance of --5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6804 CRL.P No. 11177 of 2023
(a) any offence punishable under section 153-
B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code; or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence;
Except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
11. Here, in this case, the High Court Government Pleader has produced the copy of the requisition made by the police seeking sanction from the State Government through the Home Department. The letter dated 15.02.2024 is also produced before the Court, which clearly reveals that the sanction was not obtained. Therefore, taking cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law and it is liable to be set aside.
12. However, the contention of the petitioner for quashing the FIR cannot be granted as there is an offence made out against the petitioner in the FIR as per the complaint of the de-facto complainant.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:6804 CRL.P No. 11177 of 2023
13. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Taking cognizance by the Magistrate against the petitioner is here by set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate. The police may obtain sanction and produce the same before the Magistrate. Thereafter, the Magistrate shall take cognizance, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72 CT:SK