Karnataka High Court
Smt. Laxmi Ravindra Hebbalkar, vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2019
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102052/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAXMI RAVINDRA HEBBALKAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O. PLOT NO.27/B, "BASAVAKUNJ",
NEAR KLE SCHOOL,
BELAGAVI,
DISTRICT:BELAGAVI-591 108.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MALAMARUTHI POLICE STATION BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. RANGAPPA S/O. GURILINGAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
ELECTION FLYING SQUAD OF BELAGAVI,
PARLIMENTARY CONSTITUENCY (MALMARUTHI AREA),
NOW ASST DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DEPT.,
GOKAK-591 307,
TALUKA:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1,
R2-SERVED)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.162/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC II-COURT,
BELAGAVI, ARISING OUT OF BELAGAVI MALAMARUTHI POLICE
STATION IN CRIME NO.93/2014, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
171-H OF IPC AND SEC. 127-A OF REPRESENTATION OF THE
PEOPLE ACT, 1950, 1951, 1989 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
HEREIN, WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the arguments of petitioner's counsel and the HCGP for respondent No.1.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 05.04.2014 a complaint was lodged by one Rangappa Nagannavar, the then Election Flying Squad of Malamaruti area alleging that when he along with one Mahantesh Hiremath-Sector Officer in a vehicle were on election patrolling duty, they found a hoarding poster belonging to Congress- party on the building of Sri.Kittur K.S. and on enquiry they came to know that both accused Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any permission and 3 therefore a complaint was filed and thereafter the case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 171-H of IPC and Section 127-A of Representation of People Act (for short, 'R.P. Act').
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the provisions of law and the Court below has mechanically proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offence without perusing the provision of law i.e. Section 171-H of IPC and Section 127-A of R.P. Act which are non- cognizable offence. It is contended that the offences invoked against the petitioner are non cognizable offences. It is further contended that Section 127-A of R.P. Act speaks about the restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters etc. but in the instant case, nowhere in the complaint and FIR and the charge sheet there is 4 no whisper or material alleging that the petitioner was involved in printing of pamphlets or posters and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4. The petitioner's counsel in his arguments also he reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and contended that the mandatory provisions under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied and hence contends that it is required to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the HCGP in his arguments he contends that the permission is sought and Magistrate has made an endorsement on the permission letter available in page No.40 and hence the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
6. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the HCGP, this Court 5 has to examine whether the police have complied the provisions of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. in the case on hand.
7. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, the main contention is that Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. has not been complied and when a non-cognizable offence is taken place, it is the duty of the police officer to enter the same in the Station House diary and send the informant to the concerned Magistrate under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and so also under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., permission has to be obtained from the Magistrate to initiate the proceedings and on perusal of the letter addressed to the JMFC, which is available at page No.40, the Magistrate has not applied his mind and only made an endorsement on the very letter itself that 'permitted' and the same is also not in compliance 6 with Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and it appears, only an endorsement is made and not applied any judicial mind and the same appears to be in a casual manner permission is granted and the same is not in consonance with the very object of seeking permission to initiate the proceedings and no material is placed to show that the informant is sent to the concerned Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and hence, the same is not in accordance with law. Hence, the proceedings cannot be continued against the petitioner for non-compliance of mandatory provisions.
8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.7
The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.162/2015, on the file of JMFC II Court, Belagavi, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh