Karnataka High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH
S/O SEETHARAMU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RA/T NO.2ND CROSS
VALMIKI NAGAR
MYSORE ROAD,
CHAMARAJPETE
BANGALORE 560 018
2. MARUTHI
S/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RA/T NO.33,
L7TH CROSS
CHOLURUPALYA
MAGADI ROAD,
Digitally signed by RAMANGARA DIST 562120
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH MUNNA
COURT OF 3.
KARNATAKA S/O MOHAMMED ELIYAS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEAWRS
RA/T NO. 61
ARUNDATI SLUM
GANGONDAHALLI
BANGALORE 562162
-2-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
4. LAKSHMANA
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO. 252
6TH CROSS
7TH MAIN
J.P NAGAR
1ST PHASE
BANGALORE 560 078
5. JIYAULLA
S/O MOHAMMED ESHMAIL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RA/T NO. 133
AHAMMED NAGARA
MASJID CROSS
PADANAKOTE
BANGALORE NORTH 560001
6. DEEPAK
S/O CHANDRABAM SINGH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO. 04,
7TH CROSS
OLD BANK COLONY, CHUNCHAGHATTA MAIN
KONANAKUNTE POST
BANGALORE 560 062
7. ISAQ PASHA
S/O MOHAMMED ABDUL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RA/T NO.44,
MODALAPPA STREET
MAVAHALLI NEAR LALBAG
BANGALORE 563162
8. DILIP
S/O SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-3-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
R/AT NO. 11/2
5TH CROSS
CHOLURUPALYA
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE 560 023
9. CHANDRA
S/O SWAMY KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEAWRS
RA/T NO. 137,
5TH CROSS
SAVALTTHI PALYA
GOODS SHED ROAD
BANGALORE 560 053
10. R. RAJAN
S/O K P RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 80/A, VEERAPILAI STREET
BHARATHI NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 042
11. NAGESH K B
S/O B BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.17,
KANAKANAGARA
YELACHANAHALLI
BANGALORE 560 078
12. RIYAZ PASHA
S/OMAKBUL HUSAIN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO. 47,
17TH CROSS, LAKSANDRA
AJADHNAGARA
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE 560 030
-4-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
13. DINESH KUMAR
S/O VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO 1651
1ST STAGE
1ST PHASE
CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 040
14. PUTTASWAMY
S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO. 53/1
12TH CROSS
MUNIYAPPA GARDEN SARAKKI
J.P NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 078
15. VASANTH KUMAR
S/O T SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEAWRS
R/AT NO. 3637, 2ND MAIN ROAD
GIRINAGAR
4TH PHASE
B.S.K. 2ND STAGE
BANGLAORE 560 085
16. RAJASHEKAR
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. 3852
2ND MAIN
GAYITHRINAGAR
BANGALORE 560 021
17. DEVRAJU
S/O ANAND
-5-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, YELLAPPA REDDY BUILDING
5TH CROSS
YESHWANTHPURA
BANGALORE 560 022
18. NARASIMHA
S/O KORAGA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO. 21/C,
2ND CROSS
K.G. NAGAR, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI
BANGALORE 560 019
19. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O GOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEAWRS
RA/T NO. 604
GANGODANAHALLI
LAKSHMIPURA POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560001
20. GANGADHARA
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RA/T NO.41,
2ND CROSS
NEAR MAHILA VIDYALAYA
ANJANEYA BLOCK
BANGALORE 560 020
21. SHANKARA
S/O PUTTAMADU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO. 185/17,D.C. STREET
CHAMARAJPETE
BANGALORE 560 018
-6-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
22. YATHIN
S/O SHIVARAMU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO. 12
3RD CROSS
1ST MAIN
BASVESHWARA LAYOUT
NAGASHETTIHALLI
BANGALORE 571448
23. KRISHNA
S/O SADASHIVA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 291
4TH CROSS
4TH MAIN
VIVEKNAGAR
EXTENSION LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 047
24. PRAMOD M.S.
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO. 871,
7TH CROSS
NARMADA RIVER ROAD,
BRUNDAVANANAGAR,
HANUMANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE 560 050
25. PAPEGOWDA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO. 72,
1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR
GOLLAHARATTI
-7-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
BANGALORE 560091
26. SHIVKUMAR
S/O LAXMAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT STRIKER ASSOCIATION,
NO.159/21, 2ND MAIN SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE 560 020
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICE
SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HON BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560001
2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SHESHADRIPURAM
POLICE STATION
BANGALORE 560020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
-8-
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) QUASH THE FIR BEARING
NO.130/2019 DATED 24.12.2019 ALONG WITH THE
INFORMATION REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT
SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION AND SUBMITTED TO THE
HONOURABLE M.M.T.C. - , MAYO HALL, BENGALURU WHEREIN
THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 26 ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF THE
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT. (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
A1 AND ETC.
[
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.7412/2020, pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 290 of the IPC and under -9- CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022 Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which are non-cognizable offences.
3. In the light of the fact that the said offences were non-cognizable, FIR could not have been registered against the petitioners on such offences, without at the outset seeking permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
4. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, no such permission is sought from the Magistrate to register the FIR or conduct investigation. The issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101632/2021 and connected cases, disposed of on 21.9.2021, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"4. The main ground of attack by the petitioner in respective petitions is that the offence alleged is under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. 1963 and it is a non cognizable offence. Before proceeding to investigate the offence the Police ought to have taken prior permission from the concerned court as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended
- 10 -CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
that even if the permission from the Magistrate was obtained, it is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. The State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630. Learned HCGP has contended that in some of the cases, the Police have obtained permission of the concerned court and then investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. He further contended that the Police have taken the care to comply mandatory requirements and then only they have proceeded with the matter and ultimately filed the charge sheet.
5. Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli V/s. The State of Karnataka, By Cowl Bazaar Police Station, reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3355 elaborately considered the provisions of Section 155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and held that offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non cognizable offence. Investigation of cases under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act and all further proceedings before the court are vitiated by incurable illegalities or defects for want of permission to investigate the case by the competent Magistrate under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the Police have taken prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate a non cognizable offence as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. In crime No.151/2020 of Ranebennur Rural Police station, the FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 78(3) of K.P. Act
- 11 -CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
and Section 420 of IPC and charge sheet has been filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. Section 420 of IPC is invoked only to get over requirement of prior permission of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not contain any allegation to attract ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. There is nothing in the FIR to indicate that any member of the public had complained of cheating by the petitioner or other accused persons named in the FIR. In the said crime No.151/2020 the Police have not obtained permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is an abuse of process of court.
8. The coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (supra) after elaborately considering Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued guidelines to be followed by judicial Magistrate.
The said guidelines are as under:
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted
by the informant to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, he
should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him
- 12 -CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate
should examine the contents of
the requisition with his/her
judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the
orders permitting the
investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.
9. In Crime No.93/2020 of Guttal Police Station the Police gave requisition seeking
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022permission to investigate a non cognizable offence and the learned Magistrate on the same day has issued intimation as granted permission to investigate a non cognizable offence.
10. In Crime No.25/2020 of Halavagilu police station, Harapanahalli District, Ballari, the Police gave requisition and on the same requisition, the learned Magistrate has made endorsement as "permitted to register the case".
11. On looking to the said aspects, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not followed the guidelines laid down in Vaggeppa case (supra). By looking to the said endorsement, there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate. Under the circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the following cases cannot sustain in law and accordingly, they are quashed."
5. In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
- 14 -CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.7412/2020, pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru, stand quashed qua the petitioners.
I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15