Anand Singh vs State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Anand Singh vs State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2008

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

This criminal petition coming on tﬁis

day, the Court made the foiicwingz
ORDER.w _

Thﬁ accused in  of
Station, Hospet, when   (Crixﬁé
N92] 2006) and chafgg-sh_e§{¢§A%4§'Q1'-vF.¢ﬁ"en¢eg"'uﬁaer Sectian
594 and 506 1.9.0. 011*' £11e__1f£ie  giudge [Jr.D3:1.) and
JMFC, Hc>§g:e:,'t;;V.:VV}§':a:s1s  Section 482
Cr.P.C: itb   and the order dated

25.Q.,.2o::,»6, .:e'Lg::s~:§;':~;p;'g"%Vsja;e;--.case against the petitioner.

_ V '2.  'i'h§§ €.'a$&  «*..>f the prosecution is that in the early

 fpf };?;;2()05, while the compiaiuant and his

V   Kama}: were discharging thaér duties as

.'  in the: premises cf (me: Baldotta, at Gandhi

Céxioxgig. Vﬁospet, three uaknawn persons, of whom 01335: was

" V»  ihﬁving a White celoured car stopped in front: of the house of

 Eéléaﬁa and the driver abused the members of the famiiy of

' Baidotia in bad ianguage and thmatenﬁd them with dire

consequences 1311 addition to threat is kiii Baidotta and his

M



family members by attacking his I"EiSid8I1C€W 

Accoxdéng to the eempiairzant, out of {W0 other"..':c>.iccV1:;V):aiI'iiis;[». 

the eat', one was fast asieep and fixer"m:her--'_'did ii(§t" his

mouth but blinking his eyes o'esez'\;*£%¢§i   

evening c3f9.12.20{)5, the "is__s9iz;i iQ }i;a'v::vVV1ddged"V V

the complaint with thzf: Po1i.§::é;--whQ §observed
that the complaint ciid" } commission of a
cognizabie oﬂ'e;t1c:s.v It  "§§.ub~Inspector of

Police, I.aw_Vé::ndA;:: (§§d€tf,.   Statien, Hcspet,

addressed a   the C. rtzquesting

permissitm to zi31§estigat£'V.Vi:1tﬁ5"£#Iic.'xaomcogxaizable oﬁences

under sectiogc; $04'-.a;;:d.V5:36E_1.P;€:. The J.M.P'.C. by order

.._at éB5'ﬁf""l2.45 pm, is said to have

   accorcied permission as prayed

 fgr, i£:a§.i'u:g tao t}v:ie'.}zr;gt}éi's§.Vtigation and ﬁling of tha chaxgt: sheet

_  the ﬁrcﬁfignér.

   learned Senior Counﬁal for the petitioner

a!x:?Va13.c,fcs§ the fallowing contentions;

M



11.

That the inspactar of Police havirag 
conclusion that the compiaint did iigit c:o:;§§titui§ M

a cognizabie offence, v_2'aS_1'eq1§_iniéd " --"t.{_:'g.19éfr:. IU. the 

irifemnant to the Magist1'af{.t:« 

(2) of Section 155 jCr.P. mat 

a requisition to  __$t~:t:1V(iL1_gV"p;c*Ii3:xié$si0n  V

ta investigate into  .1;1on~(iog1iizab1£z offence

was withoui: a11t1:1«f5Itit§,r'VA of   inébﬁzpetcnt.

'¥'ha:: '£11e   ";c £>mplaint do not

diis;c1(:i_$i:._vti1éWCCa!;1I:t1j_s3S:ioI1 Qfmé11:1y of the oﬁenccs

" 'Apégz-gjsii;§;b1e:"m."der Sécﬁgm 504 and 506 1.13.0. by

r VVP-ccoxding to the learned Senior

"   C3ouI1séI'; _ aJver1n<:ms of the complaint

 cii$:<v:l<::sé': tii1a{'  three unidentiﬁed persons, of
V"VVh{).§3L'~T;h.f§' driver of the white coieured car

  .4§ii1egedl3r abused the famiiy of Baldotta and took

"t}i€..ﬁame of the petitimxer as his Balsa (Dhani).

' ExsT::t11e driver was not idenﬁﬁcd as the petitioner,

 the complainant who knew" the petiﬁcrner due

to an earlier altercation between the petitioner
and the security guards, the accusations do not
point to the commissisn of the oﬁénces by the

Er'!

petitioner.



"K55. Information as to non~cogniza}:J1eVV"

and investigaticn of such cases.-(1)  '

is given tmo an oﬁcer in charge of »sbiaf1c~ n   'V

the commission within the }§_mits__cf; s'a1ch  sta1'i<;;1:;"of _a 

noilwzzognizable offence, he sliaiiéénter C.:'1i'.,C*c'::'J.1S's€'V

entered the substance Véfnthg info:'::;1:r.:1*3foi'2,i3;:A._a..1?£>'5k ta 2 L'

be: kept by such oﬁ1cerL4}i'i1 s-xgch  ' as §j11e State
Govzirnment may ~beha1f, émd Itfifttl' the

informant to the M'agistﬁ3.ié§*. 

(2.) "?~§_9 _' -yoiicei  ':jiz1've$tigate a non-

cognizablg    (;.I'£iCI' of a Magistrate:

having power to t1y:$u£§i1"c2ise off bamﬁt ttué"(:z#1se fer

trial.

(3) Any pzxiics. oﬁicéi   antler may
extarcise  1:pweI*t$" 'vi_n...«vrespcct of the
investigaﬁ'c-31» ffrxgepig  to arrest without
warrant) as Aazﬂ  of a police statitm amy

ﬁxﬁﬁtiﬁé in a cognizablc. Caszé}

éiﬁhexjﬁa cxaaefratlates to two or more eﬁhnces

L  {j'ff_ﬁ"§z1?1fL';1{'§VV1%1'£:'it :I§§§$t' 'QI1€ is cognizablc, the case shaii be

2 2 '  ti}~ §£1€ ¢(}ﬁm,izab1e case, notwithstanding that

 .Tot}iT€r: '_(:'>ﬁ'e;f1§::~:s are nerrcognizable". i\

5



'?. H" the infermant dc:-sizres to seek a 

polica oﬂicer to investigate: into the 11<)n«c0g:;i:?ab1e:VA_0fI'éﬁCt:;?K V' 

at the hands of the Magistrate,   t<)' iécige' 

1.

113.661' Section 200 Cr.P.{3., when his mind to the averments being VV satisﬁnd that there rea,sdi1s. _:'i:r3 "'b§c}it:vé' a 1103:1- cesgnizable offence is comixiittéd. invcsﬁgaﬁon by the ju:'i.sdi<:ti0;::a{«'Pxylicﬁ.' Iﬁi'3.§:1j,*.':€EvE5:1t, V's:::cv§i1 a gaower cannot be exemisgd cgapriciously and must resuit :5': judicial order does not mean extract:ing5't;1;1é cﬁiiréw 'tgxt the comgzlaint and the evidence add=ﬁgctu:d'~befoz1t'wth¢_ i\I§agistx~ate. What is requimd by iaw is .Aap§3}ic.a;§A:i§>;1-- to the material on record, satisfy Iuimseif " thé£t_V?;31é':2=}f_*is alhtikéed £0 invesﬁgait: into the commission of the naii-c:[email protected];E§le aﬁence. it is onfiy ihereafter that the Magistjéafe under sub~Se<:ti<m (2) of Section 1.55 Cr.P.C. thti Police Oﬁcer to investigatﬁ inio the new

-~.<::bgnjza1:>1e as otherwise, the Police Gfﬁcer has 110 poxxmr $0 izzvtésézigate into such an oﬁence. Sub--Sec't:;io:1 (3 ) sf Section 155 Cr. P. C. requires 'aha Poiice Oﬁicer who mceiives the order M sf Magistrate, to axercisc the same power ' investigatien (axcézpt the power to azfjfﬁﬁt Witi10'ut:ia?eif1:an1) as " 'V the smear may exercise in a cegnizablc-e.aé.e."TT,. V

3. In the light OfSZ1b"S{%';t.i£'l;{1 (2) 'of'Sec::¢. ﬁA i.:f§;.f;...{:r§3f.C_,.4 1 ' the contention of the .. '1:;'"1€: l?0V1vivc:rbe Oﬁicer too, can in his di.é.c2é{ioAn«.V Magistrate for permissien to investigate: offence, even if the £irv1véV.'Ma§istIate for such an order caxniat aﬁaid thai ﬁueh a contexigiom if the ?0§i<:-Se Officer to act a(:CrC}I'd'i3;].'g"'-jtf."I'}T!.1f.SVV"r'E-?}i'}fL:."£E'). fézncy, to pick and choose, which canxgot but be 'Ch§ii9acte';rsied as arbitrary 03: capricious. Inmy '<:«:;;;i'sié»:=:1E'€;d_vA§)'gi11io13, the Statute 21063 110': empower the Police .VV»b§t:%§;};.i'sition, by 3 Writtczl Itpiesentation to the grant 9:" permissien ta investigate into the nan-cogriizabie oﬁence.

9. In the facts and cimumstances of this case, as

-»vn:<:>tit3t:d supra, the representatioxz cf the Sub-«inspector of Police addressed to the J.M.F'.C. for permission to invesﬁgats 'LFK in the rezsuit, the petition is allowed. Thu: 1 a in <::.c.r~:o.s57/2006 an the rue of.«<::i»-:3. (3:~;. a£:.3'_'% J.M.F.C., Hospet is quashed. " ~_. _ I _ _ Ets*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court