Karnataka High Court
Ataulla S/O Abdulsab vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101167/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.101168/2017, 101169/2017
AND 101170/2017
IN CRL.P NO. 101167/2017
BETWEEN:
ATAULLA S/O ABDULSAB
@ ABDULLARAHAMANSAB HAUNSBHAVI
AGE:54 YEARS,OCC:BUSINESS
R/O HIREKERUR, BUSTAND BEHIND
IBRAHIM NAGAR TQ:HIREKERUR
DIST:HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M. H. ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RATTIHALLI POLICE
REP BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMIITED BY PSI OF RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION
UNDER CRIME NO.140 OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P. ACT WHICH
IS PENDING UNDER C.C.NO. 78 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101168/2017
BETWEEN
ATAULLA S/O ABDULSAB
@ ABDULLARAHAMANSAB HAUNSBHAVI
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O HIREKERUR, BUSTAND BEHIND
IBRAHIM NAGAR,R TQ:HIREKERUR
DIST:HAVERI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M. H. ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RATTIHALLI POLICE
REP BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMIITED BY PSI OF RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION
UNDER CRIME NO. 14 OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P. ACT WHICH
:3:
IS PENDING UNDER C.C.NO. 92 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101169/2017
BETWEEN
ATAULLA S/O ABDULSAB
@ ABDULLARAHAMANSAB HAUNSBHAVI
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O HIREKERUR, BUSTAND BEHIND
IBRAHIM NAGAR,R TQ:HIREKERUR
DIST:HAVERI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M. H. ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RATTIHALLI POLICE
REP BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMIITED BY PSI OF RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION
UNDER CRIME NO. 92 OF 2016 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P. ACT WHICH
IS PENDING UNDER C.C.NO. 199 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR.
:4:
IN CRL.P NO. 101170/2017
BETWEEN
ATAULLA S/O ABDULSAB
@ ABDULLARAHAMANSAB HAUNSBHAVI
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O HIREKERUR, BUSTAND BEHIND
IBRAHIM NAGAR,R TQ:HIREKERUR
DIST:HAVERI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M. H. ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RATTIHALLI POLICE,
REP BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMIITED BY PSI OF RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION
UNDER CRIME NO.98 OF 2016 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P. ACT WHICH
IS PENDING UNDER C.C.NO. 201 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:5:
ORDER
All the above petitions are filed by the petitioner praying the Court to quash/set-aside the final report submitted by the PSI of Rattihalli Police Station in Crime Nos.140/2015 (pending in C.C.No.78/2016), 14/2015 (pending in C.C.No.92/2015), 92/2016 (pending in C.C.No.199/2016) and 98/2016 (pending in C.C.No.201/2016), respectively, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
2. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint in all the four cases, they are substantially one and the same. Therefore, to know the case of the prosecution, the averments in the complaint pertaining to Crl.P.101167/2017 is taken into consideration, wherein the Inspector of Special Police Station, District Crime Branch, Haveri, lodged the complaint alleging that at about 5.00p.m. when he was in the Police Station, one Malathesh, who standing on the road near :6: Cinema Theatre at Rattihalli, with an intention to commit fraud to the public, he was telling that he will give Rs.80.00 for Re.1.00 and he was getting the amount from the public and he was noting down OC numbers and in that regard the PSI received the credible information and then, he get the staff members and also secured two panch witnesses, then they went nearby Malatesh Cinema Theatre at Rattihalli and when they see by hiding, they observed, one person standing on the public road and in the light of the street light, with an intention to commit fraud on the public, stating that he will give Rs.80.00 for Re.1.00 and collecting money from the public and he was noting down OC numbers and they were confirmed that he is playing matka and after showing to the panch witnesses and when they wanted to apprehend the said person by gherao and raid on the said person, the public, who were giving the numbers ran away, and even the staff of the complainant chased them, but they were not traced. :7: It is further stated that when they conducted raid on the person, who was noting the numbers, and apprehended him in the presence of panch witnesses, when his name was asked, he told his name as Abbujar S/o. Mukthyar Ahmed, Resident of Rattihalli. When they conducted the personal search of the said person, they found Rs.810/- and the chits containing OC.Numbers, totally 6 white papers, so also, there are some blank white sheets, which were prepared to note down the OC Number, one ball pen, Nokia Mobile (Black colour) of Rs.100/- and they were seized in the presence of panch witnesses. When the said person was asked to whom he is going to give said Matka chits, for that, he told that he will give to one Ataulla Abdulsab Haunsbhavi, who is staying on the back side of Hirekrur bus-stand. Then he was taken along with them and along with the seized materials they came to the Police Station after preparing the panchanama on the spot itself. Then the complainant lodged the complaint, on :8: the basis of which, case came to be registered for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
Thereafter, while filing the charge sheet, the offence under Section 420 of IPC has been deleted in Crime No.140/2015 pertaining to Crl.P.101167/2017.
3. In all other three cases, the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused No.2 and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State in respect of all the four petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under the similar set of facts, this Court has already considered the matter in detail in a batch of petitions in Crl.P.3365/2016 along with the connected :9: petitions and the said matters were disposed of on 07.04.2017. Learned counsel relied upon the said order of this Court and submitted that similar facts are involved in the cases on hand and also no prior permission of the learned Magistrate was obtained under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. before proceeding to conduct the investigation in the matter. Hence, he has submitted that there is no prima-facie case as against the petitioner herein. Hence, submitted to allow all the four petitions and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that looking to the prosecution material there is prima- facie case against the petitioner herein. As per Section 78 of Karnataka Police Act, the Police are authorized to arrest the accused persons without warrant from the concerned Court. Hence, he has submitted that when that is so, the alleged offence even under Section 78(3) : 10 : of KP Act, it is a cognizable offence and not non- cognizable. Hence, in view of that there is prima-facie case in all the four petitions and the petitioner has to face the trial. Hence, submitted to reject all the four petitions.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the respective petitions, FIRs, complaints and other materials produced in the petitions, so also, the charge sheet material produced in some of the cases. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel on both sides, which are referred above.
8. Looking to the FIRs and also the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that in some of the cases, though Section 420 of IPC was registered at the first instance, but the charge sheets are filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act. Therefore, the matters referred : 11 : above are to be considered that the proceedings are only under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
9. The whole controversy between the petitioners and the prosecution is firstly with regard to whether the offences are cognizable or non-cognizable. Though it is the contention of the prosecution that Section 88 of Karnataka Police Act gives the Power to the Police to arrest the accused persons gaming in public places without warrant, and hence the offence is a cognizable offence, this aspect has been considered by this Court in batch of matters, which is reported in 2014(4) KCCR 3355, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court has referred to Schedule I & II of Cr.P.C. and in respect of other offences other than the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, referring to Schedule II, consistently held that the offence under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, cannot be deemed to be a : 12 : cognizable offence, but they are said to be non- cognizable offence.
10. It is ascertained during the course of hearing of these matters from both sides that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said batch of matters is not at all challenged by the prosecution and hence it attained finality.
11. Looking to the decision reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3355, as per the discussion made by the learned Single Judge, the contention of the prosecution with regard to referring to Section 88 of Karnataka Police Act and deeming provision that when the Police are having the power to arrest without warrant it can be treated that it is a cognizable offence was considered and after making a discussion referring to Schedule I and II of Cr.P.C., in respect of the offences in other enactments other than IPC, learned Single Judge ultimately came to the conclusion that offence under Section 78(3) is a : 13 : non-cognizable offence. When once it is a non- cognizable offence, the mandate provides under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is must and the Police ought to have obtained such permission from the concerned Magistrate Court before proceeding with the investigation of such matter. But admittedly in these batch of matters, no such permission was obtained. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that mentioning as 'permitted' is also not sufficient and there ought to be a detailed order by the Magistrate Court under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and they relied upon the decision of this Court by a coordinate bench reported in 2017 (1) AKR 461. Perusing the said decision it is held that mere mentioning as 'permitted' is not sufficient and the matter is to be considered by the concerned Magistrate Court and a reasoned order has to be passed under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., then only it amounts to compliance of requirement of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. : 14 : Therefore, even in respect of those cases also the contention of the learned HCGP that prior permission has been obtained by the concerned Police prior to the investigation in the matter will not be sustainable at all.
12. Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., which reads as "When information is given to an officer in charge of the police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate."
13. Looking to Section 155(1), the wordings used is "shall enter", therefore, there is no option to the Police Officer about the entry of the said information and there is a mandate that they have to compulsorily enter such information about the non-cognizable offence immediately after receipt of the said information. But : 15 : looking to the materials placed on record in respect of the above mentioned cases are concerned, no material has been produced by the prosecution to show that the information received at the first instance by the Police before proceeding to the spot, is entered in the diary. In the absence of such material to show that the said information has been received, it is very difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the prosecution that they have received such information before proceeding to the spot.
14. Even alternatively the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if it is taken that as Section 420 of IPC is also one of the offence registered as per FIR, and hence, it is a cognizable offence, in that case also the requirement of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., which clearly shows that "Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge : 16 : of a Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."
15. So in this connection, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, wherein Their Lordships have clearly observed that regarding the importance of time for entering such information in the concerned diaries and by the said decision, Their Lordships have made it mandate regarding registration of FIR immediately on the receipt of the information disclosing a cognizable offence as a general rule. It is no doubt true, in the said decision : 17 : there are some exceptions culled out pertaining to particular class of cases like family disputes/matrimonial disputes/commercial disputes/ corruption cases, so these are some of the illustrations given by Their Lordships in the said decision, it is also observed that the very nature of such case require some sort of preliminary enquiry. Therefore, in such type of cases non registering of the information immediately in the concerned register will not be fatal to the prosecution. But looking to the cases on hand, they do not come in any of the said circumstance, therefore, as per the general rule and as per the mandate given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, even if it is true that though the offence is also under Section 420 of IPC and the offence is cognizable offence, Police ought to have registered the same in the concerned register.
16. With regard to entering the said information in the concerned register kept in the Police Station, the : 18 : prosecution has not placed any piece of paper to show that the requirement under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. is concerned to the alleged offence, but one of the offence is under Section 420 of IPC, is also not produced before the Court and hence, there is non-compliance.
17. Looking to the requirements of either Section 155(1) or Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. in case of receipt of information regarding non-cognizable and cognizable offences respectively, to have transparency in the criminal justice system starting from the Police Station there should not be any time gap giving scope for deliberations and introduction of false things in such information by the Police because of such time gap and to give such information to the general public that immediately when the information was received, the same is recorded by the Police and there is no scope at the subsequent stage to manipulate the things. If the information received by the police is not entered in the : 19 : concerned registers in the cases of non-cognizable offence and cognizable offence, it quite often results in embellishment as a result of after-thought. If the said information is not entered in the register immediately, then it not only gets bereft of the advantage of the spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Therefore, entering the information received in the concerned registers immediately and without loss of time by the concerned police assumes great importance. I have already observed above tht even if the offence is only a non-cognizable offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, Section 155(1) mandates that the said information shall be entered in the register immediately. So also, if the alleged offence is a cognizable offence and the police have received the information about the commission of such an offence, even in that case also, as per the : 20 : requirement of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., it has to be entered in the concerned register immediately and the police machinery has no option in the matter except entering the said information in the concerned register. But, looking to the materials produced in the case, it clearly go to show that the police have not followed these mandatory requirements and even they have not produced any iota of material before this Court to show that they have entered the information so received immediately in the concerned registers in case of non- cognizable as well as the cognizable offence.
18. But looking to the matters under consideration the Police have not at all cared about these mandatory requirements and not taken any steps to enter the receipt of information at the first instance in their diary.
19. Perused the above cases apart from registering the offence for the offence under Section : 21 : 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, the FIR was also registered for the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. in 16 such cases. Out of such 16 cases in 5 cases police have completed investigation and filed the charge sheet, but while filing the charge sheet it was filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act and the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. was dropped in all those five cases. In other 11 cases wherein the case is registered even for the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. they are at the stage of investigation. It is no doubt true if any one of the offence out of the alleged offences is a cognizable offence then in that case obtaining prior permission from the concerned Magistrate Court as per Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. before proceeding to investigate the matter is not at all necessary. But looking to the above cases for consideration whether really the materials goes to show that there is also the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. committed by the petitioners/ accused. As 5 cases : 22 : have already been investigated and charge sheet have been filed in all the 5 cases the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is dropped. This itself clearly goes to show that the police have registered the case even under Section 420 of the I.P.C. only with an intention to get over the mandatory requirements of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the investigation according to their whims and fancies. Even in those 5 cases no public came forward to give the complaint that they have been cheated by any of the petitioners. So the police suo motu registered the case even for the said offence. Therefore, their intention is very clear that it is to abide or overcome of obtaining prior permission from the concerned Magistrate Court.
20. Apart from that looking to the alleged offence in these cases, it is under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
: 23 :
21. Perusing Section 78(3) of K.P.Act, which read as (3)"Whoever is found gaming on any of the objects specified in sub-section (1) in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees, or with both."
22. Looking to the wordings in Section 78(3) of K.P.Act, the wordings are to be considered that in any place to which the public have access to such places. Therefore, the place at which the alleged incident has taken place also assumes importance from the point of the accused so also from the point of the prosecution and if the information received is entered in the concerned diaries, the said place would have already mentioned in the diary, then it also assures that at the first instance, the information given is in respect of the : 24 : said particular place, therefore, there will be no scope for the Police machinery to change the place subsequently and to manipulate the things; there may be possibility that after visiting the said spot and in anxiety that too bring the case as desired by the Police, there may be chances of changing the very place after once they visit the spot and subsequently, they taking the complaint from the respective complainants.
23. However, in order to avoid chances of manipulation it is required that the receipt of a information at the first instance is to be entered in the register and that is the object of the provisions of K.P.Act, so also, the Code of Criminal Procedure and by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said mandate is also not followed by the prosecution in these cases.
24. With regard to the contention on the side of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the : 25 : statements said to have been complaints in the above cases are hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C is concerned, if there is a definite information to the police about committing the cognizable offence for registering even the offence under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, when there is first information already received by the Police and without entering such information in the concerned diary and when immediately they proceeded to the spot, collected the material at the spot by conducting seizure mahazar, arrested the accused persons, had deliberations about the factual aspects of the case, then if the complaint is taken subsequently, as it is rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and it cannot be the first information, at the most it can be treated as the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation.
: 26 :
25. Looking to the materials produced on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing on behalf of the petitioners, they have succeeded in convincing this Court that the complaints were received after completing every process at the spot and after returning with arrest of the accused persons to the Police Station and then they have obtained the complaint and registered the FIR, in the above cases, same cannot be treated as the first information and they are hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
26. Looking to the FIR registered in many of the cases, it is no doubt true in all the cases, one accused person found at the spot and according to the Police machinery he has been arrested at the spot itself. It is also their case that such accused person also made statement before the Police that he has given matka : 27 : chits to the other accused, who were not found at the spot. But looking to the wordings in Section 78(3) of K.P.Act, it starts with the wordings, "whoever is found gaming" this itself implies that the accused, who was present at the spot said to have involved in gaming in public places, then only the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of K.P.Act is made applicable. But admittedly in the cases on hand, even according to the Police machinery and the FIR said to have been registered, some of the accused were not present at the spot and the accused person, who were present at the spot, gave the information that they gave the matka chits to other accused persons. Hence, this itself shows that the other accused persons i.e., the persons, whose names were referred by the accused, who is found at the spot, were really not present at the spot. When that is so, the question of arraying such accused for the offence under Section 78(3) of K.P.Act does not arise at all and even in respect of this contention. Learned counsel for : 28 : the petitioners have also relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2014 in Crl.P.100378/2014. Even looking to the said decision also the learned Single Judge has observed that the accused was not found at the spot. Therefore, Section 78(3) of K.P.Act shall not be made applicable to the said cases.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in Crl. P. No.100378/2014 and other connected matters, wherein also the learned Single Judge held that if the accused is not at all found at the spot when the alleged raid was said to have been conducted, then, in that case and in his absence, the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act cannot be made applicable at all to such accused persons. Therefore, even on that aspect also and looking to the materials placed before this Court in many of the : 29 : cases hereinabove, admittedly, even according to the prosecution case, the accused persons, who have come up before this Court in these petitions, were not at all found at the place of raid. Therefore, in the absence of their presence, the question of registering a criminal case that they have also committed the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act will not arise at all.
28. Looking to the materials placed on record, as per the prosecution, what the act done by the police is that they received a credible information about the commission of such offence at a particular place and, immediately, they proceeded to the spot, they arrested some of the accused persons at the spot, conducted seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and seized the amount, ball-pen, matka chits and mobile phones. In almost all the above cases, it is the contention of the prosecution that they have seized : 30 : these four materials and it is also their further case that after completing the process and after arresting the accused, they returned to the police station and obtained complaint and registered the FIR. This clearly goes to show that everything had been completed by the time the complaint was obtained and it was registered as FIR. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are justified in making the submission that there was nothing left to be investigated by the time the complaint was obtained and FIR was registered and the whole investigation was completed before the registration of FIR. Therefore, this is also a procedure which is not recognised by the mandatory provisions/relevant provisions of the Karnataka Police Act as well the Code of Criminal Procedure.
29. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader which are referred : 31 : to above. But, looking to the principles enunciated in the said decisions, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is, no doubt, true the scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed and certain principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in those decisions, but the question is whether they can be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Looking to each of the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, I am of the clear opinion that they are not made applicable in view of the legal infirmity in these cases which I have discussed above. The said decisions will not come to the aid and assistance of the prosecution.
30. Apart from that looking to the judgment of the learned single Judge reported in 2014(4) KCCR 3355 referred to above, all the contentions raised herein were raised in the said case also, they were discussed at : 32 : length and the learned Single Judge passed a detailed order which has become final. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners, in all the above petitions, have succeeded in establishing their contention that registration of First Information Reports are in derogation of the mandatory requirements of law, without fulfillment of the said requirements. Even according to the factual story of the prosecution, there is no material to show that the petitioners/accused have committed such alleged offences.
31. All the four petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.2 and the final report submitted by the PSI of Rattihalli Police Station in Crime Nos.140/2015 (pending in C.C.No.78/2016), 14/2015 (pending in C.C.No.92/2015), 92/2016 (pending in C.C.No.199/2016) and 98/2016 (pending in : 33 : C.C.No.201/2016), respectively, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act are ordered to be quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR