Karnataka High Court
Sri Nabisab vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3365/2016 C/W
Crl. P. Nos.3366/ 2016, 101359/2016,
101358/2016,101365/2016, 101360/2016, 101361/2016,
101362/2016, 101363 /2016,
101364/2016, 101447/2016, 101448/2016 101453/2016,
101454/2016,101455/2016, 101482/2016, 100504/2016,
100292/2017, 100293/2017, 100294/2017, 100295/2017,
100296/2017, 100297/2017, 100298/2017,
100328/2017, 100329/2017, 101338/2016,
101332/2016 AND 100356/2017
IN CRL.P NO. 3365 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI NABISAB S/O SHEK IMAMSAB,
AGED:50 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O KILLA AREA, GANGAVATHI,
NOW AT ARAVIND NAGAR,
NEAR POOLBAND SCHOOL,
HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLRI.-581401. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK MAGANUR FOR C. P. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP.)
:2:
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.
165/2015 OF GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE GANGAVATHI, AND
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT IN C.C.NO. 2130/2015
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
GANGAVATHI, IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P NO. 3366 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI NABISAB S/O SHEIK IMAMSAB,
AGED:50 YEASR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O KILLA AREA, GANGAVATHI,
NOW AT ARAVIND NAGAR, NEAR
POOLBAND SCHOOL,
HOSAPET, DIST:BALLARI-581401. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK MAGANUR FOR C. P. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
CR.NO.171/2015 OF GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE, GANGAVATHI
AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT IN C.C.NO.2131/2015,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
GANGAVATHI IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER.
:3:
IN CRL.P NO. 101359 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO PASS QUASH THE FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED BY PSI OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER
CRIME NO. 110 OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 78(3)(1)(g) OF K.P.ACT WHICH IS PENDING
UNDER CRIMINAL CASE NO. 126 OF 2015 BEFORE THE
PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND CJM COURT
HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101358 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE. )
:4:
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY CPI OF
HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 94 OF 2016 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3)(1)(g) OF
K.P.ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101365 OF 2016
BETWEEN
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI AGE:45 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR
DIST. HAVERI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M.H. ADVOCATE.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP.)
:5:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED
BY PSI OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 126
OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
78(3)(1)(g) OF K.P. ACT WHICH IS PENDING UNDER CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 32 OF 2016 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION) AND CJM COURT HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101360 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI AGE:45 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O HIREKERUR, 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 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 SUBMITTED
BY PSI OF RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 01 OF
2012 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3)
OF K.P. ACT WHICH IS PENDING UNDER CRIMINAL CASE NO. 82
OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR.
:6:
IN CRL.P NO. 101361 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH 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 SUBMITTED
BY PSI OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 133
OF 2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
78(3)(1)(g) OF K.P.ACT WHICH IS PENDING UNDER CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 36 OF 2015 BEFORE THE PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION) AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
COURT HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P 101362 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE. )
:7:
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH 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 SUBMITTED
BY PSI OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 106
OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
78(3)(1)(g) OF K.P.ACT WHICH IS PENDING UNDER CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 125 OF 2015 BEFORE THE PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SENIOR DIVISION) AND CJM COURT HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101363 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP.)
:8:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED
BY PSI OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 98 OF
2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
78(3)(1)(g) OF K.P.ACT WHICH IS PENDING UNDER CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 123 OF 2015 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR
DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT HIREKERUR.
IN CRL.P NO. 101364 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
ATAULLA S/O ABDULLRAHAMANSAB
HAUNSBHAVI, AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HIREKERUR POLICE,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH 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 SUBMITTED
BY PSI OF HIREKERUR POLICE STATION UNDER CRIME NO. 101
OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
78(3)(1)(g) OF K.P.ACT WHICH IS PENDING UNDER CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 124 OF 2015 BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT HIREKERUR.
:9:
IN CRL.P NO. 101447 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O MOREGALLI,
RURAL, BALLARI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.M SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI RURAL POLICE STATION.
BALLARI. DIST: BELLARY.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR AS
AGAINST PETITIONER IN BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION
CRIME NO. 344 OF 2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT
1963 AND SECTION 420 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P NO. 101448 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O MOREGALLI,
RURAL, BALLARI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.M SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.)
: 10 :
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PSI RURAL POLICE STATION.
BALLARI. DIST: BELLARY.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR AS
AGAINST PETITIONER IN BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION
CRIME NO. 339 OF 2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT
1963 AND SECTION 420 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P NO. 101453 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA K. S/O LATE GAVISIDDAPPA,
AGED: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
RANITHOTA, 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.)
: 11 :
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AN FIR IN
BRUCEPET POLICE STAION CRIME NO. 121 OF 2016 PENDING ON
TEH FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT
1963 AND SECTION 420 AND 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P NO. 101454 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1. MALLAPPA K S/O LATE GAVISIDDAPPA,
AGED: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
RANITHOTA, BALLARI.
2. HANUMESHA S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
RANITHOTA, BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(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 CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BRUCEPET POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 253 OF 2016 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3), 78(2) OF KARNATAKA
: 12 :
POLICE ACT 1963 AND SECTION 420 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P NO. 101455 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAPPA K S/O LATE GAVISIDDAPPA,
AGED: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
RANITHOTA, BALLARI.
2. HANUMESHA S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE,
RANITHOTA, BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(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 CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
PETITIONERS INITIATED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 812 OF 2016
(CRIME NO. 43 OF 2016) PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963.
: 13 :
IN CRL.P NO. 101482 OF 2016
BETWEEN
MOIN @ MOIN BASHA KURNOOLI,
S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O: D.NO.19, W.NO.28, MORE GALLI,
COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V SHIVARAJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RURAL POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO. 64 OF 2016 BY THE RESPONDENT PLICE THAT IS RURAL
POLICE STATION, BALLARI AND THE CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 64 OF 2015 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTATE
FIRST CLASS, BALLARI SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERN.
IN CRL.P NO. 100504 OF 2016
BETWEEN
MOIN @ MOIN BASHA KURNOOLI,
S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O: D.NO.19, W.NO.28, MORE GALLI,
: 14 :
COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. SHIVARAJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BRUCEPET POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETIITON IS FIELD U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1168/2015 ON THE FILE OF FIRST ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BALLARI, FOR THE ALLEGED
O/P/U/S.78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
IN CRL.P NO. 100292/2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
PSI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
: 15 :
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C. NO.506/2015 (CRIME
NO.227/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) & J.M.F.C., BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
IN CRL.P NO. 100293/2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, 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 CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BALLARI APMC YARD POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 112 OF 2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3)
OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 AND SECTION 420 OF IPC.
: 16 :
IN CRL.P 100294 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
PSI RURAL POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.25/2017 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & 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. 100295 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE. )
: 17 :
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 CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BALLARI BRUCEPET POLICE STATION CRIME NO.12/2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & 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. 100296 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, 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.
: 18 :
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BALLARI BRUCEPET POLICE STATION CRIME NO.8/2017 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & 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. 100297 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, 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 CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BALLARI BRUCEPET POLICE STATION CRIME NO.7/2017 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., BALLARI, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 AND SECTION 420 OF IPC.
: 19 :
IN CRL.P NO. 100298/2017
BETWEEN:
MOIN S/O ABDUL GAFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSIESS, R/O: MOREGALLI,
COWLL BAZAAR, 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 CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
BALLARI GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 4 OF 2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI,
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 AND SECTION 420 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P 100328/2017
BETWEEN:
HARIVANAM ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
S/O UPPER MUKANNA,
R/O: HARIVANAM VILLAGE,
TQ: ADONI, DIST: KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE.)
: 20 :
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PPETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 263 OF 2016 IN THE
COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78 (3) OF K.P.
ACT.
IN CRL.P 100329/2017
BETWEEN
HARIVANAM ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
S/O UPPER MUKANNA,
R/O: HARIVANAM VILLAGE,
TQ: ADONI, DIST: KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HATCHOLLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
: 21 :
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 557 OF 2015 IN THE
COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P.
ACT.
IN CRL.P NO. 101338 OF 2016
BETWEEN
YEMMIGANUR BASHA @ MEHABOOB BASHA,
S/O SHAKSHA VALI, AGE: 42 YEARS,
R/O: 6TH WARD, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK,
INDIRA NAGAR, YAMMIGANUR VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJA HIREMATH,ADV. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RURAL POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
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 FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO. 233 OF 2013 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IS RURAL
POLICE STATION, BALLARI AND THE CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 471 OF 2015 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
: 22 :
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BALLARI SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
THE PETITIONER IS CONCERN.
IN CRL.P NO. 101332 OF 2016
BETWEEN
BASHA @ MEHABOOB BASHA,
S/O SHAKSHA VALI, AGE: 42 YEARS,
R/O: 6TH WARD, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK,
INDIRA NAGAR, YAMMIGANUR VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJA HIREMATH,ADV. )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KURUGODU POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
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 FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME
NO. 265 OF 2013 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IS
KURUGODU POLICE STATION, KURUGODU, BALLARI DISTRICT
AND THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
717 OF 2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS BALLARI, SO
FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERN.
: 23 :
IN CRL.P NO. 100356 OF 2017
BETWEEN
HARIVANAM ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
S/O UPPER MUKANNA,
R/O: HARIVANAM VILLAGE,
TQ: ADONI, DIST: KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SIRIGERI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
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 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 851 OF 2016 IN THE
COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT,
SIRUGUPPA, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 78(3) OF K.P.ACT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: 24 :
ORDER
The above batch of petitions are filed by the petitioners in respective petitions invoking jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying the Court to quash the proceedings initiated by the police initially in some of the cases for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P. Act') and in some other cases for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act and so also under Section 420 of the I.P.C.
2. Looking to the batch of the petitions, the accused persons were considered for bail, they were released on bail and in some cases, the cases are still at the stage of only registration of FIR and in some other cases even the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.
3. The details of the crime number, offences and criminal cases registered, if any, in these petitions are as under:
Sl. Criminal Crime No. and Offences C.C. number No Petition No. Police Station (Sections) and the Court 1 3365/2016 165/2015 420 of IPC and 2130/2015 Gangavathi 78(3) of K.P. Act Prl. CJ & Town P.S. JMFC, Gangavathi : 25 : 2 3366/2016 171/2015 420 of IPC and 2131/2015 Gangavathi 78(3) of K.P. Act Prl. CJ & Town P.S. JMFC, Gangavathi 3 101359 of 110/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 126/2015 2016 Hirekerur P.S. Sr. CJ & JMFC, Hirekerur 4 101358 of 94/2016 78(3) of K.P. Act 2016 Hirekerur P.S. 5 101365 of 126/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 32/2016 2016 Hirekerur P.S. Prl. CJ (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Hirekerur 6 101360 of 1/2012 78(3) of K.P. Act 82/2012 2016 Rattihalli P.S. Prl. CJ & JMFC, Hirekerur 7 101361 of 133/2014 78(3) of K.P. Act 36/2015 2016 Hirekerur P.S. Sr. CJ & JMFC, Hirekerur 8 101362 of 106/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 125/2015 2016 Hirekerur P.S. Sr. CJ & JMFC, Hirekerur 9 101363 of 98/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 123/2015 2016 Hirekerur P.S. Sr. CJ & JMFC, Hirekerur 10 101364 of 101/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 124/2015 2016 Hirekerur P.S. Sr. CJ & JMFC, Hirekerur 11 101447 of 344/2016 420 of IPC and 2016 Ballari Rural 78(3) of K.P. Act P.S. 12 101448 of 339/2016 420 of IPC and 2016 Ballari Rural 78(3) of K.P. Act P.S. 13 101453 of 121/2016 420 of IPC and 2016 Brucepet P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act Ballari City 14 101454 of 253/2016 420 of IPC and 2016 Brucepet P.S., 78(3) & 78(2) of Ballari City K.P. Act : 26 : 15 101455 of 43/2016 420 of IPC and 812/2016 2016 Brucepet P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act I Addl. CJ & Ballari City JMFC, Ballari.
16 101482 of 64/2016 420 of IPC and 2016 Ballari Rural 78(3) of K.P. Act P.S. 17 100504 of 118/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 1168/2015 2016 Brucepet P.S., I Addl.CJ (Jr. Ballari City Dn.) & JMFC, Ballari. 18 100292 of 276/2013 78(3) of K.P. Act 506/2015 2017 Ballari Rural II Addl. CJ & P.S. JMFC, Ballari. 19 100293 of 112/2016 420 of IPC and 2017 APMC Yard P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act Ballari City 20 100294 of 25/2017 420 of IPC and 2017 Ballari Rural 78(3) of K.P. Act P.S. 21 100295 of 12/2017 420 of IPC and 2017 Brucepet P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act Ballari City 22 100296 of 8/2017 420 of IPC and 2017 Brucepet P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act Ballari City 23 100297 of 7/2017 420 of IPC and 2017 Brucepet P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act Ballari City 24 100298 of 4/2017 420 of IPC and 2017 Gandhinagar 78(3) of K.P. Act P.S., Ballari 25 100328 of 1/2016 78(3) of K.P. Act 236/2016 2017 Shiruguppa P.S. CJ & JMFC, Shiruguppa. 26 100329 of 23/2015 78(3) of K.P. Act 557/2015 2017 Hatcholli P.S. CJ & JMFC, Shiruguppa Shiruguppa. Circle 27 100338 of 233/2013 420 of IPC and 471/2015 2016 Ballari Rural 78(3) of K.P. Act II Addl. CJ & P.S. JMFC, Ballari. 28 100332 of 265/2013 420 of IPC and 717/2015 2016 Kurgod P.S., 78(3) of K.P. Act III Addl. CJ & Kurgod Circle, JMFC, Ballari. Ballari : 27 : 29 100356 of 25/2016 78(3) of K.P. Act 851/2016 2017 Sirigeri P.S., CJ (Jr.Dn.) & Tekkalakota JMFC, Circle, Ballari Shiruguppa.
4. The arguments of the learned counsels Sri V.M.Sheelavant, Sri Chandrashekhar Patil, Sri M.H.Patil, Sri Shivaraj Hiremath so also Sri M.Amaregouda are as under:-
The main grounds of attack by the petitioners in the respective petitions are that the offence alleged and even charge sheeted is only offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Therefore, since the offence is non-cognizable offence, before proceeding to investigate the matter the prosecution ought to have taken prior permission of the concerned Magistrate Court as required under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., which is not done in this case. It is also the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the respective petitions that even the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) is also not followed by the police. The information which was alleged to have been received by the police as stated was not at all entered in the diary kept in their police station. Therefore, there is no compliance of Section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C. also. : 28 : The contention of the learned counsels is also on the ground that when the information said to have been received by the police without entering the said information in the concerned diary of the police station they said to have proceeded to the spot wherein it is alleged that the accused persons involved in the mutka at the public place giving assurance to the public that they will give Rs.80/- for Rs.1/- and by saying so they were committing the offence deceiving the public and thereby offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is also committed by the accused persons. In this regard also it is the contention of the learned counsels that even if for the sake of argument without admitting it is taken that the offence committed by the persons is also under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and the said offence is a cognizable offence that even then also there is no compliance of mandatory requirement as required under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. It is their contention that whether according to the prosecution the offence is non-cognizable or even if insertion of the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. in either of the cases there is no compliance of the mandatory : 29 : requirements of Section 155 and 154 of Cr.P.C. in the case on hand. The further limb of argument by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners that when such information was already given according to the prosecution then proceeded to the spot and they have drawn the seizure mahazar, arrested the accused person, thereafterwards they went back to the police station and taken complaint and registered it as FIR. Learned counsels submitted that by the time complaint is registered in the police station the entire investigation in the case is completed and there is nothing to be investigated further by the police. It is also submitted during the course of argument that looking to the very allegations in the complaint in some of the cases that accused persons were not at all present at the spot and it is their case that the other accused who are present at the spot gave the information to the police that they are giving mutka chits into the hands of another accused person who admittedly, even according to the prosecution, was not found at the : 30 : place when the alleged case said to have been conducted by the police.
The further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above petitions that as per Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, it is made applicable if the accused is found at the place when the raid was conducted, if the accused is not at all present, even according to the case of the prosecution in such event, they cannot invoke the said provision against the persons, who are not found at the place, where the raid is conducted. So on these grounds, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the registration of the very cases itself is against the mandatory provisions and hence, they are not maintainable. It is further contended that though in some of the cases along with Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is also inserted, but when the charge sheet is filed after completing the investigation, they have dropped the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, it is their contention that in such event, the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. : 31 : is made applicable that they have to take prior permission in such cases, though the offence under Section 420 of IPC is also one of the offence being registered.
The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Police have issued circular and only on the basis of the said circular and the instructions given to the different Police Stations, the Police machinery proceeded to book the cases against the petitioners, even though no such offence has taken place.
In Crl.P.100504/2016, though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., has been obtained, even then the proceedings are not sustainable as the petitioner was not at all present at the spot even according to the prosecution.
In Crl.P.100328/2017 and 100356/2017 also it is stated that Police are 'permitted'. Even with regard to the same, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that simply stating that Police are 'permitted' is not sufficient to proceed with the investigation in the : 32 : matter. If there is a specific order with detailed reasons, then only the said order is said to be in compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and only the word 'permitted' is not enough to come to the conclusion that there is compliance of said mandate.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in some of the cases, when it is the definite case of the prosecution that they have received the information in respect of a commission of a cognizable offence, in that event as required under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., Police ought to have entered the said information in the concerned register maintained in the Police Station and then only they should have to proceed, but without doing so, the Police are proceeded to the spot after completion of conducting mahazar, and accused are arrested then taking the complaint is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and at the most it can be treated as statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. but not as the complaint.: 33 :
5. In support of their contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, have relied upon the following decision:
i. Crl.P.No.101833/2015 and connected matters passed by this Court dated 18.12.2015 in the case of Sharath @ Salim vs. The State of Karnataka;
ii. Crl.P.No.101238/2016 passed by this Court dated 09.11.2016 in the case of Smt.Asma @ Asma K. vs. The State of Karnataka;
iii. Crl.P.No.101350/2015 and connected
matters passed by this Court dated
16.11.2015 in the case of Alimurtuza
Dadepir Chamanmalik vs. The State of
Karnataka;
iv. (2014) 2 SCC 1 in the case of Lalita
Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others;
v. 2014 (4) KCCR 3355 in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli vs. The State of Karnataka by Cowl Bazaar Police Station, Bellary;
vi. Crl.P.No.101384/2016 passed by this Court dated 07.11.2016 in the case of Basha @ Mehaboob Basha vs. The State of Karnataka;
: 34 :vii. Crl.P.No.101385/2016 passed by this Court dated 07.11.2016 in the case of Basha @ Mehaboob Basha vs. The State of Karnataka;
viii. Crl.P.No.101391/2016 and connected
matters passed by this Court dated
04.11.2016 in the case of Smt.Asma W/o
Moin vs. The State of Karnataka;
ix. W.P.No.102248/2016 passed by this Court
dated 11.07.2016;
x. Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P.
decided on 19.03.2015 by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court;
xi. Crl.P.5802/2016 passed by this Court
dated 22.09.2016 in the case of H.Ganga Setty & Another vs. The State of Karnataka & Another;
xii. Crl.P.100378/2014 and connected matters passed by this Court dated 05.03.2014 in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli vs. The State of Karnataka;
xiii. ILR 2016 KAR 1899; (2016) 3 AIR Kant R358 in the case of Mrs.Anjula Divedi and Others vs. State represented by Sub-
Inspector of Police, Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumkur;
: 35 :
6. Per contra, learned HCGP during the course of his arguments has submitted that with reference to many decisions, which he has relied upon, has submitted that the object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to see that there should not be any false prosecution against the accused persons. But if the Police machinery proceeded in accordance with law, conducted investigation in a particular case and submit charge sheet before the Court, in that case before quashing the proceedings as sought by the petitioners in such case, the Court has to look into the object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. He has also submitted that in some of the cases, the Police have obtained prior permission of the concerned Magistrate Court and then investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. However, he has fairly conceded that though in some of the cases while registering the FIR under Section 78(3) of K.P.Act, the offence under Section 420 of IPC was also included, but after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 78(3) of KP Act and the alleged offence under : 36 : Section 420 of IPC was dropped. Therefore, the factual position even according to the learned HCGP is that, now the proceedings are only for the offence under Section 78(3) of KP Act.
8. In this connection, learned HCGP drew the attention of this Court to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court viz.,
i) Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others,
ii) State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others,
iii) Rajiv Thapar and ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor,
iv) Parkash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others and other connected cases, which he has filed along with the memo.
9. Referring to the relevant paragraphs in the said decisions, learned HCGP has submitted that Police machinery is having statutory right under the Criminal : 37 : Procedure Code and Karnataka Police Act, that they can investigate into the matters; when such a statutory right is conferred on the Police machinery, it cannot be lightly held that they have proceeded with the investigation in the matter without compliance of mandatory requirements and hence, the proceedings are maintainable and they are not liable for quashing. Hence, looking to the materials placed by the prosecution in respect of the above petitions, Police have taken care to comply the mandatory requirements and then only they have proceeded in the matter and ultimately filed the charge sheet in some of the cases and in some cases, the investigation is yet to be completed and charge sheet is yet to be filed. Hence, it is his contention that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision that he has relied upon, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in respect of the above cases and proceedings cannot be quashed.
10. Sofar as the contention of the petitioners that no material has been produced by the prosecution with regard to entering the information in the concerned diaries : 38 : maintained in the police station before proceeding to the spot and immediately after receipt of the said information, the same has not been entered in the concerned diaries, is concerned, it is his submission that when the Police have proceeded under the impression that the said offence is non-cognizable offence, therefore, complying of mandatory requirement under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. will not arise at that stage. Hence, submitted that it will not be a Bar in proceeding with further investigation in the matter.
11. In support of his contentions, learned HCGP has relied upon the following decisions:
i. LAWS (KAR) 1978-4-16/KANTLJ-1978-2- 273 in the case of M.R.Chandrashekaran vs. State of Karnataka;
ii. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others;
iii. (1945)47 BOMLR 245 in the case of
Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed;
iv. AIR 1977 SC 2229 in the case of
Kurukshetra University and another vs. State of Haryana and another;: 39 :
v. (2011) 14 SCC 770 in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others;
xiv. (2014) 2 SCC 1 in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others;
vi. 2013 Cri.L.J.1272 in the case of Rajiv Thapar and ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor;
vii. (2007) 1 SCC 1 in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others.
12. 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.
13. 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 : 40 : Police Act. Therefore, the matters referred above are to be considered that the proceedings are only under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
14. 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 cognizable offence, but they are said to be non-cognizable offence.
: 41 :
15. 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.
16. 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 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 : 42 : of matters, except the above three matters, viz., Crl.P., about which I have made reference above, no such permission was obtained in other cases. So far as other three matters viz., Crl.P. Crl.P.100328/2017 and Crl.P.100356/2017 in which it is submitted that it is mentioned in the proceedings as 'permitted'. In this regard also it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that mentioning as 'permitted' is 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. Therefore, even in respect of those cases also the contention of the learned HCGP that prior permission has been obtained by the : 43 : concerned Police prior to the investigation in the matter will not be sustainable at all.
17. 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."
18. 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 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 : 44 : 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.
19. 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 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." : 45 :
20. 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 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 : 46 : 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.
21. With regard to entering the said information in the concerned register kept in the Police Station, the 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.
22. 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 : 47 : 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 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 : 48 : the information about the commission of such an offence, even in that case also, as per the 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.
23. 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.
24. Perused the above cases apart from registering the offence for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, the FIR was also registered for the : 49 : 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 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 : 50 : 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.
25. Apart from that looking to the alleged offence in these cases, it is under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act.
26. 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." : 51 :
27. 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 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.
28. 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 : 52 : 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.
29. With regard to the contention on the side of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 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 : 53 : most it can be treated as the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation.
30. 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.
31. 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 chits to the other : 54 : 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 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 : 55 : 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.
32. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl. P. No.101482/2016 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 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 : 56 : committed the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act will not arise at all.
33. 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 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 : 57 : 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.
34. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader which are referred 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 : 58 : discussed above. The said decisions will not come to the aid and assistance of the prosecution.
35. 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 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. Hence, the FIRs registered in Crime Nos.94/2016 of Hirekerur Police Station, 344/2016 and 339/2016 of Bellary Rural Police Station, 121/2016 and 253/2016 of Brucepet Police Station, 64/2016 of Bellary Rural Police Station, 112/2016 of APMC Yard Police Station, Ballari City, 25/2017 : 59 : of Ballari Rural Police Station, 12/2017, 8/2017 and 7/2017 of Brucepet Police Station, Ballari, 4/2017 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari; and C.C. No.2130/2015 (in Crl.P.No.3365/2016), C.C. No.2131/2015 (in Crl.P.No.3366/2016), C.C.No.126/2015 (in Crl. P.No.101359/2016), C.C.No.32/2016 (in Crl. P.No.101365/2016) C.C.No.82/2012 (in Crl. P.No.101360/2016) C.C.No.36/2015 (in Crl. P.No.101361/2016) C.C.No.125/2015 (in Crl. P.No.101362/2016) C.C.No.123/2015 (in Crl. P.No.101363/2016) C.C.No.124/2015 (in Crl. P.No.101364/2016) C.C.No.812/2016 (in Crl. P.No.101455/2016) C.C.No.1168/2015 (in Crl. P.No.100504/2016) C.C.No.506/2015 (in Crl. P.No.100292/2017) C.C.No.263/2016 (in Crl. P.No.100328/2017) C.C.No.557/2015 (in Crl. P.No.100329/2017) C.C.No.471/2015 (in Crl. P.No.101338/2016) C.C.No.717/2015 (in Crl. P.No.100332/2016) C.C.No.851/2016 (in Crl. P.No.100386/2017), which are pending on the file of the : 60 : Courts below, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, I pass the following Order:
36. All the petitions are allowed. The above mentioned FIRs in and the charge-sheet/criminal cases are hereby quashed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners based on the FIRs and chargesheet, are hereby quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK/BSR/KMS