Karnataka High Court
Umesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7090 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. UMESHA
S/O LATE PRAKASHA
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT MANJUNATHA BADAVANE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
2. GURUPRASAD
S/O LATE HONNAKERE GOWDA
AGED 27 YEARS
R/AT K H B COLONY
KALKUNIKE HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
3. VINAY KUMAR N
S/O VENKATESHA
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT NILAVAGILU VILLAGE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
4. SANJAY
S/O SHIVAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT HALAGERE VILLAGE
2
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
5. ABHISHEK
S/O GOVINDA
AGED 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.113, K H B COLONY
KALKUNIKE HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
6. MUKHESH GOWDA
S/O S VENKATESHA
AGED 24 YEARS
R/AT SALEKOPPALU VILLAGE
K.R.NAGARA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602
7. SUNIL
S/O J C VIJAY KUMAR
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT TATTEKERE VILLAGE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
8. ABHISHEK
S/O PANDU
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT HALAGERE VILLAGE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
9. NARASIMHA
S/O PURUSHOTHAMA
AGED 23 YEARS
R/AT OPP PLYWOOD FACTORY
HALAGERE VILLAGE
HUNSUR TOWN
3
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
10. BALA @ BALARAJ
S/O HUCCHAPPA
AGED 30 YEARS
R/AT KURJANA BEEDI
KALKUNIKE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
11. GAGAN DEEP
S/O RAMACHANDRA
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT HALAGERE VILLAGE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
12. NAVEEN KUMAR G
S/O H.H. GOVINDA
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.113, H H B COLONY
KALKUNIKE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
13. SHIVARAJ KUMAR
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 30 YEARS
R/AT NILAVAGILU VILLAGE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
14. MAHESHA
S/O MAHADEVA ALIAS MADAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT RANGANATHA BADAVANE
HUNSUR TOWN
4
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT
REP BY THE SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
HUNSURU POLICE STATION
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.402/2018 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR,
MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF
K.P. ACT OF HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION, IN
CR.NO.20/2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE - D.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
5 This petition is filed by petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 14 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet filed by the police against the petitioners in C.C.No.402/2018 arising out of Crime No.20/2018 registered by Hunsur Town Police Station, Mysore on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), CJM Court, Hunsur, Mysore City for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the KP Act" for short).
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-state - State and perused the records.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the suo- motu complaint registered by Hunusuru Town Police alleging that on 30.01.2018 at about 10 p.m., he received credible information that in the house of one 6 Late Raju V.P. situated at Halagere Village, Hunsur Town, some unknown persons were playing cards, i.e. Andar-Bahar betting. Accordingly, the respondent- police along with the panchas visited the spot at 10.45 p.m. and apprehended 14 persons and seized cash in a sum of Rs.25,740/-, 52 playing cards and one towel. Thereafter, a case in NCR No.29/2018 came to be registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the KP Act. The respondent-police sent a requisition to the Magistrate to seek permission to register the case. After obtaining the permission, the respondent-police registered a case in FIR No.20/2018 and later filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.402/2018 against the accused persons and the same is challenged before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contended that the police arrested the accused and seized the cash and other materials under the 7 panchanama and thereafter, registered the FIR, which is against the law in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case as well as the provision of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. that arresting and seizing the materials and registering the case without obtaining permission is against the law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are not sustainable under the law. Hence, he prayed for the qushing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected to the criminal petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the records, especially, on perusal of the First Information Report, which was recorded by the police, where he categorically stated that after receipt of the information, he, along with panchas, went to the spot 8 at 10.45 p.m. and apprehended 14 persons and seized the cash as well as the playing cards and towel under the panchanama between 11-00 p.m. to 12-30 a.m. Thereafter, they brought them to the police station and registered a case in NCR.No.29/2018 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the KP Act. Subsequently, they sent a requisition on 31.01.2018 seeking permission from the Magistrate for registering the FIR. Hence, an endorsement was issued by the Sheristedar of the Court in the name of the Court for the grant of permission. Subsequently, FIR No.20/2018 was registered on 31.01.2018. Thereafter, the police filed the charge sheet. On perusal of the documents, it clearly shows the complainant not at all obtained permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate for conducting the raid, registering the FIR and filing the charge sheet. After apprehending the accused and seizing the materials, he registered the 9 NCR and, for formality, on the next date of arrest, he obtained permission from the Magistrate. Whereas the order of the Magistrate is not found in the charge sheet in order to show when the requisition was sent to the Magistrate and also the Magistrate had applied his mind to grant the permission to register the case found fault with, which is against the provision of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. registering the case without permission. Merely, the order of the Sheristedar dated 31.01.2018 is produced, but it itself does not serve the purpose that the police have obtained permission prior to registering the case. The accused persons were arrested, panchanama prepared, and the materials were seized by the police, which amounts to a violation of the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case and in various similar cases, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view 10 that the petitioner has made a case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.402/2018 arising out of Crime No.20/2018 registered by Hunsur Town Police Station, Mysore on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), CJM Court, Hunsur, Mysore City are hereby quashed.
The materials (i.e. cash etc.,) seized by the police are ordered to be confiscated to the State.
Sd/-
JUDGE KTY