Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and proceedings alleging 506/507 IPC offenses. Court allowed petition holding police initiation contrary to Section 155(1) Cr.P.C. for non-cognizable offenses, reserving liberty for complainant.
FIR, information, final report and entire proceedings quashed; liberty reserved to complainant to proceed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4247 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Sri. Aditya, Son of Late J. Niranjan, Aged about 30 years, Resident of No.58, Deccan Nursery, 3rd Cross, Jangamaraju Layout, Sarakki, J.P.Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore – 560 078.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri Bharath Kumar V., Advocate)
AND:
2
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri K.R.Keshav Murthy, State Public Prosecutor-II, for Respondent No.1;
Shri Karan Joseph, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to 1) quash the FIR bearing No.1574/2014 dated 11.11.2014 along with the information dated 11.11.2014 registered with the respondent Madivala Police Station (annexed vide Annexure-A and A1). 2) Quash the final report filed by the respondent police in the said matter bearing Crime No.1574/2014 currently renumbered as matter bearing C.C.No.10159/2015, pending on the fie of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore (Annexed vide Annexure-B). 3) quash the entire proceedings in matter bearing Crime No.1574/2014 pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (annexed vide Annexure-C).
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3
4
investigate such a case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such a case.
Therefore, the petition is summarily allowed, while reserving liberty to the respondent – complainant to proceed in accordance with law notwithstanding the infirmity that is pointed out insofar as the proceedings now pending against the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the registration of a case without prior magistrate permission in a non-cognizable offense vitiates the proceedings under Section 155(1) Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Aditya
State of Karnataka
Nihal Shetty
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
