Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O. Manohar Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100255 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI S/O. MANOHAR RATHOD
AGE : 47 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : BANJARA COLONY,
DESAI CAMP, TQ : GANGAVATHI
DIST : KOPPAL PIN-583 237
2. ANSAR S/O. CHANDBASHA
AGE : 30 YEARS,
OCC : SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O : RANI THOTA NEAR SCHOOL,
BALLARI, DIST : BALLARI.
3. SAKRAPPA S/O.SHANKRAPPA KATAGIHALLI
AGE : 62 YEARS,
OCC : FARMER,
R/O : WARD NO.10, NEAR MUNICIPALITY,
GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL.
4. KASHIM S/O.BANDAGISAB SURAPUR
AGE : 54 YEARS,
OCC: FARMER,
R/O : KAKKERI, TQ : GANGAVATHI
DIST : KOPPAL PIN CODE
5. ADINARAYANA S/O.OBAYYA
AGE : 42 YEARS,
OCC :AGRICULTURE,
:2:
R/O: WARD NO.6, KAMPLI,
TQ : HOSAPETE, DIST :BALALRI.
6. KHASIMSAB S/O.MARDANSAB
AGE : 32 YEARS,
OCC : FARMER,
R/O: WARD NO.8, GANGAVATHI
TQ : GANGAVATHI,
DIST :KOPPAL
7. SHARANABASAVA S/O.BASAVARAJ
AGE : 26 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.VEERAPUR,
TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL.
8. SIDDAPPA S/O.GOPAL
AGE : 37 YEARS,
OCC : FARMER,
R/O: ISLAMPUR,
TQ : GANGAVATHI
DIST : KOPPALI.
9. KRISHNARAO
S/O.NARAYANRAO
AGE : 55 YEARS,
OCC : FARMER,
R/O: H.C.NO.269, SINDHANUR TOWN P.S.
R/O : HOSALLI,
DIST: KOPPALI.
10. VASUDEVREDDY
S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGE : 52 YEARS,
OCC : FARMER,
R/O: H.C.NO.33,
APMC YARD P.S.BALLARI,
R/O: S.N.PET,
TQ & DIST : BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. A.M.MALIPATIL, ADV.)
:3:
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANGAVATHI RURAL P.S.
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(By Smt. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF COGNIZANCE
DATED 17/11/2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC AT GANGAVATHI IN C.C.NO.2121/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79 & 80 OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, office objections at Sl.Nos.15 and 16 are over-ruled.
2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice.
3. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 17.11.2018 passed :4: by the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati in C.C.No.2121/2018 for offences punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('Act' for short).
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the CPI, Gangavati Rural filed a complaint before Rural Police station, Gangavati alleging that he received credible information with regard to Andar Bahar game being played in Balaji Recreation Club, therefore, the complainant along with his staff and panchas conducted a raid on the Recreation Club and found the petitioners and some others involved in the said game for money and since the offence of gambling had been committed, the above crime was registered after seizure of the offending materials.
5. Sri.A.M.Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that seizure of material :5: and drawing up of a panchanama without obtaining permission by the Police from the jurisdictional Magistrate is fatal and it is mandatory for such permission to be obtained in terms of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., hence it is required that this Court exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. needs to quash the said proceedings.
6. A perusal of Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. would indicate that whenever there is a non cognizable offence, which is to be investigated, it is the duty of the concerned Police Officer to enter the details of the same in the Station House Diary, and send the information to the concerned Magistrate under Section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in terms of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate to initiate the investigation therein and or the proceedings against the accused therein.
:6:
7. A perusal of the record available would indicate that no such permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate has been obtained. Therefore, there being a substantive violation of the mandatory procedural law. The proceedings cannot be continued against the petitioner herein.
8. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.2121/2018 is hereby quashed;
In terms of the above direction, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.