Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.65 seconds)
Anil Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2026 cites

Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2019

(Emphasis added) Therefore, the order is perused and permitted. Except saying perused, the requisition and permitted investigation or registration of FIR, there is no indication of any application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate. This Court in plethora of cases has been emphasizing the fact that Magistrates should not permit registration of FIR by usage of words "permitted", "perused permitted" or even "permitted registration of FIR". All these illustrations of granting permission on the face of it suffers from want of application of mind. Permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a frolicsome act on the part of the Magistrate. The Magistrate exercises power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., In doing so, it cannot be that he could pass orders which do not bear a semblance of application of mind. This Court in VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 following all the earlier judgments rendered on the issue has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

The Padubidri Members Lounge vs Director General & Inspector General Of ... on 3 October, 2018

14. This Court in the case of Padubidri Members Lounge v. Director General and Inspector General of Police in W.P. Nos. 42073-75/2018 Decided on 3/10/2012, considered the mandatory provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of CrP.C., where the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:--
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 154 - P S Kumar - Full Document

Sri B P Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 November, 2020

8. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant should be sent to the learned Magistrate seeking permission and not the Station House Officer would again become unacceptable though not completely but at least partially. This Court in the case of ANAND SINGH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.3082 of 2007, disposed on 22.10.2008, has held that the informant should be referred to the learned Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission to investigate the case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - J M Cunha - Full Document

Prakash Raj @ Prakashrai vs State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2020

NC: 2026:KHC:21040 CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026 HC-KAR that the informant alone should seek permission from the Magistrate to commence investigation. I deem it appropriate to concur such plethora of opinions rendered by various High Courts as what sub-section (1) mandates referring the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) remains silent as to who has to obtain permission. Therefore, permission can either be sought by the complainant or by the Station House Officer. Wherefore, it is not necessary for the informant alone to knock at the doors of the learned Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission for registration of FIR, it could be either the informant or the Station House officer. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by other High Courts and the co-ordinate bench of this Court in PRAKASH RAJ (supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gururaj @ Guru S/O. Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka By Bytarayanapura Ps on 7 July, 2009

In the case or Dr. Gururaj v. State of Karnataka, (CRL.P. 100046/2014, decided on 22.01.2014), a complaint was filed before the police alleging abusive words used and life threat given by the petitioners and about the robbery of some gold ornaments. Police registered the case for the offences under Ss. 504, 506 and 392 of IPC and conducted the investigation. It was found that the offences
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - S B Adi - Full Document
1