Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jayaprakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2020

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                       CRL.P. No.6595 OF 2020
                                   1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6595 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.     JAYAPRAKASH,
       S/O KUBERAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
       OCC: CONTRACTOR,
       R/O 16TH CROSS,
       MCC 'B' BLOCK,
       DAVANAGERE - 577 005.

2.     CHANDRU @ BODA CHANDRU,
       S/O GANESHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       OCC: BAR BINDING WORK,
       R/O 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
       K.T.J. NAGAR,
       DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

3.     SHANTHA,
       S/O GANESHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       R/O 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
       K.T.J. NAGAR,
       DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

4.     SHANMUKHA,
       S/O SURESH BABU,
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
       R/AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
       LABOUR COLONY,
       DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

5.     UMESH,
       S/O VISHNUNARAYANA PAI,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                                               CRL.P. No.6595 OF 2020
                                       2



       SAMRAT HOTEL,
       ASHOKA ROAD,
       DAVANAGERE - 577 001.                 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH K.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY C.E.N. CRIME POLICE STATION,
DAVANGERE,
REPTD. BY ITS S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.                         ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR. NO.67/2020
REGISTERED BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-JMFC, DAVANAGERE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 78(VI) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT AND SECTION
66(D) OF I.T. ACT.


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the FIR and complaint in Crime No.67/2020 registered by C.E.N Crime police station, Davanagere, pending on the file of the II JMFC, Davanagere for offences punishable under CRL.P. No.6595 OF 2020 3 Section 78(VI) of the Karnataka Police Act and under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

2. Smt.Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP submits that while the above matter is pending, charge sheet has been laid in C.S.14/2020 filed on 13.11.2020 for offences punishable under Section 78(VI) of the Karnataka Police Act and submits that the above petition is not maintainable.

3. Per contra, Sri.Jayaprakash.K.N, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very fact that charge sheet has been laid only in respect of 78(VI) of Karnataka Police Act supports his contention inasmuch as the inclusion of Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, according to him was only to get over the rigor of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners were involved in cricket betting using mobile CRL.P. No.6595 OF 2020 4 phones whereby including Section 66(D) was completely misconceived and now that the charge sheet has been laid only for the offences under Section 78(VI) of Karnataka Police Act, without obtaining necessary prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, being contrary to the decision of this Court in Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi -v- State of Karnataka [AIR 2020 KAR 630] is required to be quashed.

4. Having taking into consideration the aforesaid submission though the charge sheet has not been particularly challenged before this court, when the FIR itself being filed on a wrong basis, foundation itself being incorrect, the question of further challenging the charge sheet would not be required. The charge sheet also having been laid only the basis 76(VI) without following the rigor of Section 155 would be nonest. As such, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.67/2020 CRL.P. No.6595 OF 2020 5 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Davanagere, as also charge sheet No.14/2020 are quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE ln