Karnataka High Court
Sharath vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRL.P NO.100923 OF 2017
C/W
CRL.P NOS. 100924, 100925, 100926, 100927,
100928, 100929, 100930, 100931, 100932, 100933,
100934, 100935, 100936, 100937, 100938,
100939, 100973 OF 2017
IN CRL.P NO.100923 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business
R/o Near Water Tank, Abdul Kalam Street
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
:2:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.264/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ballari, for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act,
1963 and Section 420 of IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100924 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Brucepet Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
:3:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Ballari
Brucepet Police Station Crime No.287/2016 pending on
the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ballari, for
the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka
Police Act, 1963.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100925 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI APMC Yard Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Ballari APMC
Yard Police Station Crime No.111/2016 pending on the
file of IV Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ballari, for the
offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka
Police Act, 1963.
***
:4:
IN CRL.P NO.100926 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Brucepet Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Ballari
Brucepet Police Station Crime No.288/2016 pending on
the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ballari, for
the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka
Police Act, 1963.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100927 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
:5:
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.166/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ballari, for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act,
1963.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100928 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
:6:
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.192/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100929 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
:7:
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.190/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100930 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
:8:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.198/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
:9:
IN CRL.P NO.100931 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.199/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
: 10 :
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100932 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.195/2016 pending on the file of
: 11 :
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100933 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 12 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.201/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100934 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 13 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.204/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100935 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 14 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.211/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100936 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 15 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.213/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100937 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 16 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.214/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100938 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 17 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.240/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100939 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sharath @ Salim
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
R/o Kasai Galli, Near Sharif Road,
Cowlbazar, Ballari
2. Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
3. Asma W/o Moin
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
: 18 :
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Cowlbazar
Police Station Crime No.246/2016 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
***
IN CRL.P NO.100973 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Moin S/o Abdul Gafar Sab
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business
R/o Moregalli, Cowlbazar, Ballari
...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.M.Sheelvant, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
PSI Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari
Dist. Ballari
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench Dharwad
...Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP)
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c.,
praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Gandhinagar
Police Station Crime No.61/2017 pending on the file of
II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Ballari, as
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and 420 of
IPC.
: 19 :
***
These petitions coming on for admission, this day,
the court, made the following:
ORDER
Since similar set of allegations are made and the cases were registered for the similar offences in many of the petitions and common questions of law and facts are involved in all the above cases, they have been taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.
2. These petitions are filed by the respective petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the complaint and FIR in the respective petitions on the grounds as mentioned in the respective petitions.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in all the petitions and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
: 20 :
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein also furnished the synopsis by providing the chart in respect of each of the cases.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sofar as the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act and under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, this Court has already considered these aspects in a batch of petitions and by a detailed order this Court quashed the proceedings. Learned counsel also submitted that Section 78(3) of K.P.Act is a non-cognizable offence, which requires prior permission of the concerned Magistrate Court under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. before proceeding with the investigation in the matter. It is no doubt true, in many of these petitions the offence under Section 78(3) of KP Act and Section 420 of IPC are also alleged. No doubt, offence under Section 420 of IPC is a cognizable offence and out of the alleged offences, if any : 21 : one of the offence is cognizable offence, in that case taking prior permission of the learned Magistrate before proceeding with the investigation is not required. But it is submitted that for the offence under Section 420 of IPC is concerned absolutely there is no material and there is no complaint from any public that they have been cheated by any of the petitioners herein, the Police suo-moto registered the cases alleging that the petitioners herein committed the offence even under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, it is their contention that only to overcome the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. the Police have alleged the offence even under Section 420 of IPC. Learned counsel also submitted that though the names of the petitioners herein were not mentioned in the FIR in many cases, but notice under Section 41(1)(b) has already been issued by the concerned Police to the respective petitioner herein asking them to appear before the Police as the cases are registered for the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of : 22 : KP Act and Section 420 of IPC or only Section 78(3) of KP Act.
6. Learned counsel submitted that even though the names of some of the petitioners, in their respective petitions, are not figured in the FIR, issuance of notice under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself is sufficient to show that the police have started initiation of the criminal proceedings as against the said petitioners and therefore, they can very well maintain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and seek the Court to quash the said proceedings also. Hence, the learned counsel made the submission that there is no prima facie case; it is abuse of process of Court and hence, prayed that all the above petitions be allowed and the proceedings be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader made the submission that when the names of some of the petitioners do not figure in the FIR, only on the basis of : 23 : the endorsement or the notice issued, it cannot be said that criminal proceedings are initiated against some of the petitioners herein and they can maintain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Learned Government Pleader, referring to the provisions, made the submission that the police have called them (petitioners) to the police station to know the details and after their appearance even the police may drop the said proceedings and that possibility cannot be overruled at this stage. Therefore, he submitted that it is too premature stage to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to order quashing of such proceedings where only notices/endorsements have been issued. Hence, he submitted that sofar as such petitions are concerned, they are not at all maintainable at this stage and prayer sought for in such petitions has to be rejected.
8. I have perused the grounds urged by the petitioners in their respective petitions, the copy of the : 24 : notices said to have been issued by the police to the respective petitioners and so also perused the complaint copy in each of the above matters.
9. Looking to the FIR and the complaint and as submitted by both sides, during the course of the hearing of the petitions, it is seen that, in many of the petitions, the names of the petitioners are not at all figured either in the complaint or in the FIR. It is, no doubt, true that the police have issued notice under Section 41(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. calling the said petitioner to come to the police station and to appear before them for the purpose of further enquiry. But, only on the basis of issuance of such notice, the contention raised by the petitioners that it amounts to initiation of criminal proceedings against them cannot be accepted at this stage. It is only after the petitioner's appearance before the concerned police for enquiry and based upon the decision which would be taken by the police, the : 25 : petitioners can proceed further. As it is rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, after the petitioner's appearance before the police, the possibility of proceedings being dropped by the police themselves, after enquiry, cannot be overruled at this stage.
10. Sofar as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in some of the above petitions, whose names appear in the FIR and the registration of the proceedings for the alleged offences under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 420 of IPC is concerned, the legal position is that when one of the offences is a cognizable offence, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., prior permission of the learned Magistrate for proceeding with the investigation is not at all required. But, the question is, whether insertion of the other offence under the provisions of IPC is really as per the facts and whether the offence has really taken place or not, or, with a mala fide : 26 : intention, to overcome the requirement/compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 155(2) is to be examined. Apart from that in many of the above petitions, it is noticed that the petitioners were not at all present at the spot when the alleged raid was conducted by the police. As per Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, it can be made applicable if the accused person is found at the place when raid was conducted. All these legal aspects has already considered by this Court in a batch of petitions in Criminal Petition No.3365/2016 and connected matters and this Court has passed a detailed order on 07.04.2017. Therefore, considering the materials placed on record, sofar as the petitions in Crl. P. Nos.100923, 100924, 100925, 100926, and 100973 of 2017 are concerned, as the names of the petitioners in the respective criminal petitions already appeared in the FIR and looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not at all placed prima facie material to : 27 : show the involvement of the said petitioners so as to attract the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act or under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act along with Section 420 of IPC. The materials goes to show that Section 420 of IPC is registered by the police with a malafide intention in order to avoid the mandatory compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Crl. P. Nos.100923, 100924, 100925, 100926, and 100973 of 2017 are hereby allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in the said petitions are hereby quashed.
11. But, sofar as the criminal petitions in Crl. P. Nos. 100927, 100928, 100929, 100930, 100931, 100932, 100933, 100934, 100935, 100936, 100937, 100938, and 100939 of 2017 are concerned, in the said cases only notices are issued by the police and the cases are not at all registered in the names of the : 28 : petitioners in the respective petitions. Therefore, at this stage, it is premature for this Court to consider those petitions seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is only after the police taking a decision whether a FIR is to be registered even as against the petitioners in the said respective petitions, then the petitioners can proceed with the matter by filing petitions. With these observations, criminal petitions in Crl. P. Nos. 100927, 100928, 100929, 100930, 100931, 100932, 100933, 100934, 100935, 100936, 100937, 100938, and 100939 of 2017 are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR/KMS