Karnataka High Court
Karigowda @ M G Goudappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7633/2016
BETWEEN:
KARIGOWDA @ M. G. GOUDAPPA,
S/O NARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O ALUR VILLAGE,
DAVANGERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
(REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II)
......
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.250/2015 OF
DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE
DISTRICT (REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
-2-
9B(1)(b)OF EXPOLOSIVE ACT 1884 SECTION 3(a) OF
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE ACT 1908, SECTION 21 OF MMRD
ACT AND SECTION 42,44 OF KMMC RULE 1994 ADN
SECTION 379,420 OF IPC) AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST JMFC
COURT, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record.
2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the record are that, the Police Sub-Inspector attached to Malebennur Police Station, was directed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Davangere Taluk, to investigate a particular case. As per the said direction, it is said that on 17.07.2015, the Deputy Superintendent of Police received a credible information that within the jurisdiction of Davanagere Rural Police Station near Aluru village, some persons are running stone quarry and they are using explosives like detonators, Ammonium Nitrate etc. for the purpose of exploding the stones without there being any authority, licence or permission from the Government. On -3- the basis of such information, the Police Sub-Inspector collected the panchwitnesses, went to the spot and found that stone quarry was running and one Mr. Karigowda @ M.G. Goudappa (petitioner), was blasting the stones by using detonators and other explosive substances. In the presence of panchwitnesses, it appears, he conducted panchanama and collected the materials used for explosion and came back to the Police Station and thereafter registered a case in Crime No.250/2015 under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, Section 3(a) of Explosive Substance Act 1908, Section 21 of MMRD Act, Sections 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules 1994 and Sections 379 and 420 of IPC and handed over the investigation to the Police Sub-Inspector, Law and Order, Davanagere Rural Police Station.
3. The above said proceedings are questioned before the Court on two grounds, viz., (i) The offence under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, is a non- cognizable offence and the police officer has no jurisdiction to investigate any offence which is non-cognizable without taking permission of the Magistrate as per Section 155(2) -4- of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Subsequently on 20.07.2015, Police Sub Inspector has made a request to the jurisdictional Magistrate to incorporate other offences under Section 3(a) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Section 21 of MMRD Act and Sections 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules, 1994 and Sections 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. If the police have to incorporate these offences, they should not have investigated the matter without registering the case under those provisions, which are said to be cognizable offences. On the aforesaid two grounds, the proceeding is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. There is no doubt that when a police officer receives an information with regard to a cognizable offence, then there is no need for the police officer to take any permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, if the information is only with reference to a non-cognizable offence and police officer wants to investigate the matter, then it is mandatory under Section 155(2) of the Code that the -5- police officer shall refer himself to the Magistrate and take permission for the purpose investigating the matter.
5. The law also mandates under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. that, the procedure should be followed by the Investigating Officer before referring the complainant to jurisdictional Magistrate for permission . It says,-
"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."
Sub-clause (2) of Section 155 says that,-
"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."
(Emphasis supplied) Coupled with the above said provision, if Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is read, which also indicates that,- -6-
"Information in congnizable cases,- 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."
6. On perusal of the above said two provisions, it is mandatory on the part of the police that whether it is cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence, if the information is received by the police, there shall be a record of the same by recording information in specific registers kept in the police station and then if it is cognizable offence, the police officer can straight-a-way investigate the matter only after registering the case. If it is non-cognizable offence, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter without the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate. If the said provisions are applied -7- to the present case on hand, the information received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police is with reference to non-cognizable offence and the said Deputy Superintendent of Police neither himself could have investigated the matter without the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate, nor directed any of his subordinate to investigate. Further, if the information received amounts to or involves cognizable offence, as noted in the letter dated 20.07.2015, that should not have been investigated by going to the spot, collecting materials and drawing-up of mahazars, which are all part of investigation. That has been done in this particular case and thereafter, the police have registered a case. Therefore, the entire procedure that has been followed by the Investigating Officer viz., the Sub-Inspector of police of Malebennur and the subsequent proceedings by the PSI Rural police, Davangere, are hit by Sections 154 and 155 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
7. Time and again, this court has passed such orders quashing the proceedings wherever the police officers have -8- been committed mistakes in not referring the complaint or not taking permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate while investigating the matter in respect of non- cognizable offences. In spite of various decisions having been rendered by this court, it appears no proper steps have been taken by the police department to direct the Investigating Agencies, who are in the helm of affairs to set right the above deficiency in the investigation. Therefore, I feel it just and necessary to direct the Director General of Police to take appropriate steps in this regard to enlighten all the Investigating Agencies so that they can in future avoid such initiation of proceedings and investigate the matter without properly following the procedure as contemplated under Sections 154 and 155 of Cr.P.C. Even after taking such steps by the Director General of Police by means of properly issuing circulars and appropriate notifications, if any police officer, in spite of such instructions/notifications/circulars, follows the same crude method of procedure, in violation of the provisions noted above, then the Competent Authorities have to take appropriate action against such erring officers -9- so as to curb such illegal procedures being followed by the police officers.
8. The Registry is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police for compliance, with a direction to intimate this court about the steps taken.
9. With the above observation, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner-Karigowda @ M.G. Goudappa in Crime No.250/2015 under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884, Section 3(a) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Section 21 of MMRD Act, Sections 42 and 44 of KMMC Rules 1994 and Sections 379 and 420 of IPC dated 17.07.2015 and all further proceedings are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kcm/KGR*