Karnataka High Court
V. Sreenivasa Prasad vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6152/2022
BETWEEN:
V.Sreenivasa Prasad,
S/o. late M.Venkataiah,
Aged about 75 years,
Ex-MLA,
#19, 7th Main Road,
Near B.M.Hospital,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysore - 570 012.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Abhishek K., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Nanjangud Rural Police Station,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. S. Jayashankar,
Government Official Gazetted,
Sector Officer,
Sector No.5,
Nanjanagudu,
Mysuru District - 573 301.
... Respondents
(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.14270/2022
2
pending before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(Special Court to deal with criminal cases related to MPs/MLAs
trialable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) at Bengaluru
for the offences P/U/S 171-H of IPC and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that upon the information that is made out to the police Authority on 31.03.2017, a requisition was made before the learned Magistrate by the police Authority and investigation was permitted by endorsing on such requisition, which has been assailed on the ground that mere endorsement of the words "Permitted" granting sanction is contrary to the procedure under Section 155(1) of Cr.PC and also that the order must be by application of mind after following the Guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630. Various other contentions have been raised including that CW-2 has died and accordingly, there would be no witness to support the case of the prosecution and no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back.
3
2. It is noticed that information relating to commission of offence has been made to the police Authority. Thereafter, in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) of Cr.PC, as matter of procedure, the police Authority must refer the informant to the Magistrate. But in this case, the further aspect is as regards the order being passed by the learned Magistrate by endorsing the word "Permitted" on the requisition itself which is impermissible. The Court while granting permission for investigation of a non-cognizable offence must apply its mind and grant of permission must be in terms of the direction of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (stated supra).
3. Accordingly, all the proceedings before the learned Special Judge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the stage of information being made to the police Authority. The subsequent procedure to be followed is in terms of the directions made above. It is for the complainant to pursue the proceedings. 4
Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Needless to state that all the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are set aside in light of the observations made above.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN