Karnataka High Court
Sri Sandeepa S C vs State Of Karnataka on 28 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23213 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.22730 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.22929 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23151 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23335 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23337 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23421 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23747 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23783 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23953 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.24061 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.24100 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP.No.23213/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
Digitally signed RESIDING AT
by NAGAVENI IN FRONT OF SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
Location: HIGH JAIL ROAD
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
2. SRI DEEPAK M.S.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.486/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.70/2023 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) AND CJM COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.22730/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA S.C.
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT JAIL ROAD
INFRONT OF SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOTE POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI D.N.KUDAL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
KOTE POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.286/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.45/2024 OF KOTE POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.22929/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA S.C.
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT JAIL ROAD
INFRONT OF SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI JAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
TUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.1135/2023 ON THE FILE OF V
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS, SHIVAMOGGA ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.253/2022
OF TUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA PENDING
ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA
POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR
AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23151/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA S.C.
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT JAIL ROAD
INFRONT OF SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOTE POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
2. SRI NAGARAJ H.C.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
KOTE POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.258/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.18/2024 OF KOTE POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE
ACT, 1963, VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23335/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
OPPOSITE TO SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
JAIL ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
2. SRI NAVEEN M.H.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.414/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.126/2023 OF JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, VIDE
ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23337/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP
S/O.CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL OPPOSITE
JAIL ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI VASANTHA G.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.1677/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.8/2024 OF JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF C/C.I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963
VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23421/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP S.C.
S/O.LATE CHNDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT JAIL ROAD
IN FRONT OF SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI RAVI B.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC.NO.6/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.128/2023 OF CEN
CRIME POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT AT
SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23747/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEPA
S/O.LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT VENAKTESH NAGRA
2ND CROSS JAIL
SHIVAMOGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. ERESHI G.
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RURAL POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.22/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.
387/2023 OF RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA PENDING
ON THE FILE OF JMFC-III, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963, VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23783/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP S.C.
S/O.LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
JAIL ROAD
OPP. SUBBAYYA HOSPITAL
LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VINOBANAGARA POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SUNIL B.C.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
VINOBANAGARA POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.269/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.22/2024 OF VINOBANAGARA POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC-III,
SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.23953/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP
S/O.LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
HOSAMANE 6TH CROSS
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE STATON
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATKAA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI VIJAY V.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RURAL POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.738/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.42/2024 OF RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC-III, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR
AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.24061/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP S.C.
S/O.LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OPPOSITE SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
LAKAMMA COMPOUND JAIL ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI SHIVAPRASAD V.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
TUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.5501/2022 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.382/2022 OF TUNGANAGAR POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
POLICE ACT, 1963, VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WP.NO.24100/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP S.C.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O.LATE CHANDRAPPA
R/AT JAIL ROAD
OPPOSITE TO SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL
LAKKAMMA COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN-577 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. DEEPAK M.S.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDITIONAL SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.5/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.
125/2023 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
POLICE ACT, 1963, VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
COMMON ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').
2. The allegation against this petitioner is that he had indulged in playing matka which runs counter to Section 78(3) of the Act.
3. The legal lacunae projected by this petitioner in all these petitions need not detain this Court for longer delve deep into the matter. The identical cases concerning the very allegation has been subject matter of plethora of orders rendered by this Court or Coordinate Bench of this Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS
4. Heard Sri P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkatesh Somareddi for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional SPP appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.6329/2020, disposed of on 16.06.2023, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
On 15-07-2019 at about 1.45 p.m. credible information was received that some persons were collecting money from public for Matka at Hindisaghatta Village, Harihara Taluk within the jurisdiction of Malebennur Police Station. Based on the said information, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.99 of 2019. Thereafter, on the said premise, a raid was conducted on the accused and a sum of Rs.920/- was recovered in cash. Several Matka chits and a pen were also confiscated. On the said basis, the respondent/Station House Officer communicates to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking his permission to register a FIR. The learned Magistrate grants permission to register the FIR on a communication made by the Station House officer by endorsing "Perused and registration permitted". Based upon the permission so granted by the learned Magistrate, the Police investigate into the issue, found the petitioner guilty of the offence and filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Act. It is filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer on 16-07-2019 is
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while granting permission by the words "Perused and registration permitted" which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in plethora of cases.
It is his further submission that without registration of crime spot mahazar and seizure were conducted which are impermissible in law. Since the offence alleged is non-cognizable without the permission from the learned Magistrate, the crime could not have been registered and further proceedings could not have been taken up. Even if permission is granted, such permission should be with the application of mind.
5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the charge sheet is already filed. If the charge sheet is already filed, there is no warrant to go back in time and consider whether the permission granted by the learned Magistrate is valid or otherwise. He would submit that if the submission of the petitioner is accepted, all the accused will get away from imposition of penalty under the Act. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as the afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What requires consideration is the permission that is granted by the learned Magistrate to register the crime. The Station House Officer after conduct of a search on 15-07- 2019 communicates to the learned Magistrate seeking permission to register a FIR. Such permission is necessary as the offence under Section 78(3) is non- cognizable and for a non- cognizable offence permission of a learned Magistrate under Section 155 of the CrPC is imperative. Section 78(3) of the Act reads as follows:-
"78. Opening, etc., of certain forms of gaming.--
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027
WP No. 23213 of 2024
C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024
WP No. 22929 of 2024
AND 9 OTHERS
... ... ...
(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."
Section 155 of the CrPC reads as follows:-
"155. Information as to non-
cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.--(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a 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.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-
cognizable."
Offence under Section 78 of the Act, as observed hereinabove, is non-cognizable and under Section 155 of the CrPC (supra) for a non-cognizable offence, permission of the learned Magistrate to register the FIR is required. Section 155 has certain conditions in it.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS Section 155 deals with information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. Sub-section (1) mandates that when information is given to an officer in-charge of the Police Station of a commission of offence within the limits of such station of a non- cognizable offence, he would enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such a case. Sub-section (4) mandates that where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be cognizable case notwithstanding other offences being non-cognizable. Therefore, three factors would emerge from Section 155 - (i) in the case of a non-cognizable offence the information would be recorded in a book kept by such officer and the informant should be referred to the Magistrate. The informant would mean the complainant, (ii) on a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate, no investigation can commence and investigation can commence only on registration of a FIR and (iii) in cases where it is an amalgam of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, no permission from the Magistrate is required to investigate offences.
8. The permission that is sought in the case at hand is granted by the learned Magistrate by the words "perused and registration permitted". Therefore, such one line orders of grant of permission have been the subject matter in several cases before this Court and the co-ordinate benches have quashed proceedings in favour of the accused only on the ground that the learned Magistrates have not applied their mind while permitting registration of FIRs. In VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF 1 KARNATAKA , a co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the entire spectrum of law has held as follows:
"3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged 1 ILR 2020 KAR 630
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS offence is non-cognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the Police have no authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the Police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the Police to take up investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.
... ... ...
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non-cognizable one and therefore, as per Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., the informant PSI ought to have been referred to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have passed the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up investigation of the case and these are the mandatory requirements of the provisions under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. which are not followed in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.
... ... ...
8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non-cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO of Police Station in respect of commission of non-
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with the procedure for investigation and for taking cognizance of non-cognizable offence reads as follows:--
"155. Information as to non-
cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a 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.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable."
9. Therefore, when the SHO of the Police Station receives a report regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., stated supra. Unless, the Police Officer is permitted by an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet.
10. This Court in the case of Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli v. State of Karnataka and Others MANU/KA/1443/2016 [(2017) 1 AIR Kant R 461] considered the requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., where case relates to a non-cognizable offence, in para 10 of the judgment this Court has observed as follows:
"10. S. 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of the information received by the Officer in charge of a Police Station relating to commission of non-cognizable offence. As per sub-section (I) of S. 155 Cr. P.C. when an Officer in charge of Police Station receives the information as to the commission of a non-
cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by such Officer in the prescribed form 'and refer the informant to the Magistrate'. Sub-section (2) of S. 155 Cr. P.C. makes it clear, that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to tty such case or commit case for trial. Sub-section(1) of S. 155 Cr. P.C., which casts a duty on the station house officer who receives information as to the commission of non-cognizable offence to enter or cause to be entered the information in the prescribed book and refer the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS informant to the Magistrate, does not enable the SHO himself to approach the Magistrate and seek orders. The provision makes it clear, that the SHO shall refer the informant to the Magistrate, thereby, making clear that it is for the informant to seek the orders of jurisdictional Magistrate for issue of direction to the police for investigation of the case. The Magistrate, on being approached by the informant, if orders investigation, the SHO concerned would get jurisdiction to register the crime, investigate the matter and not otherwise."
11. This Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P. 5934/2009 decided on 20/8/2013 considered the scope of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., has observed in para 5 as follows:--
"5. Section 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of an information received by the officer in charge of a police station relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence. According to sub- section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., when an officer in charge of the Police Station receives an information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. According to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without a order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading of sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO, who receives information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence is only to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS the Magistrate. It is for the informant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek a direction to the police for investigation. If the Magistrate on being approached by the informant, directs investigation, the Police Officer concerned would get jurisdiction to investigate the matter."
12. This Court in paragraph 6 has further has observed as follows:--
"In the case on hand, as noticed supra, upon receipt of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the SHO of Virajpet Police Station registered the same as NCR and submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter, based on which, the Magistrate granted permission. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SHO is without the authority of law and the same is not contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. Therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on such requisition is also without any basis, as such, the investigation carried on by the police and the charge sheet filed thereon are without the authority of law. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, it is open to Respondent No. 2, who is the informant before the police to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek necessary orders as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C."
13. Therefore, the SHO of the Police Station has no authority of law unless the jurisdictional magistrate permits the Police Officer for investigation of the non- cognizable offence.
14. This Court in the case of Padubidri Members Lounge v. Director General and Inspector General of Police in W.P. Nos. 42073-
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 75/2018 Decided on 3/10/2012, considered the mandatory provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of CrP.C., where the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:--
"6. As per the above provisions, when an Officer-in-charge of the police station receives an information with regard to commission of non-cognizable offence/s, i) he shall enter or caused to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by the said Officer in a prescribed form and ii) refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non- cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial.
7. In the instant case, police have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have referred the informant to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., or obtained necessary order as envisaged under Section 155(2) of Cr.
P.C., before embarking upon investigation. Thus, on the face of it, the respondents are seen to have violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C."
15. Again this Court, in the case of Veeranagouda and others vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No. 102021/2018 decided on 11/1/2019, considered the requirements of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and has held in para 9 as follows:--
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS "The Counsel appearing for the petitioner' also brought to the notice of this Court that when a requisition was given to the Magistrate, only an endorsement is made as permitted to investigate as per section 155 of Cr. P.C. on the very request letter itself and the same is not in accordance with law. The concerned Magistrate did not apply his mind and passed any considered order. On the requisition only an endorsement is made and the same is not the permission in the eye of law. Therefore in reality it is not permission at all and the prosecution has not satisfied the Court that mandatory requirements are complied before proceeding with the investigation in the matter. Legal aspect has not been complied and the same has been over looked by the Court below while ordering for registering the criminal case against the petitioners' herein. Looking to these materials it goes to show that it is the abuse of process of Court to continue the proceedings. Not only it is wasting of valuable time and energy of the Court. Even if the trial is proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the matter."
16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence.
17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS Police Station by writing a word "permitted" or "permitted to investigate". This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable offence.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non-cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an "order" by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to investigate the non- cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an 'order' which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word 'permitted' on the requisition submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word 'Order'.
19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non-cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:--
"INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION *1. Report under Section 154.--(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.
2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted."
20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted ' on the police requisition itself Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.
21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non- cognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:--
"Perused materials. Permitted Sd/-"
22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence much
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49027 WP No. 23213 of 2024 C/W WP No. 22730 of 2024 WP No. 22929 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate.
23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby quashed as against the petitioner is concerned."
(Emphasis supplied) If regard is had to the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, the Magistrate ought not to grant permission by one line orders. The co-ordinate Bench, in fact, follows the earlier judgments rendered right from 2016."
6. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) These Writ Petitions are allowed;
(ii) The proceedings initiated in these petitions under Section 78(3) of the Act, qua the petitioner, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE LB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22