The Criminal Petitioner, challenging proceedings registered under CrPC sections 41(1)(D), 102 and the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, sought quashing on the ground of illegal registration without Magistrate permission. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 154/2012 were quashed.
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 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6499 OF 2016
BETWEEN: Ismail, (accused No.1), Son of Ibrahim, Aged 32 years, Resident of Manthoor House, Savanur Village, Puttur Taluk – 574 201, Dakshina Kannada District. …PETITIONER (By Shri Srinivas V., Advocate for Shri Aruna Shyam M., Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Represented Puttur Rural Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT
2
(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent/State)
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.154/2012 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.
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 and the
learned Government Pleader.
The complainant one R.Ramesh is a Police Inspector attached to Puttur Rural Police Station. According to him, on 15.12.2006, at about 4 am, when he, along with his staff, was on night rounds and when they were near Uppinangadi, Dakshina Kannada, it transpires that an auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-21-4876 was seen moving from Puttur towards Uppinangadi in a suspicious manner and the complainant had
3
immediately stopped the auto rickshaw. It transpires that two of the occupants had immediately ran away. However, they were apprehended by the complainant and his staff and a suo motu case was registered by the Puttur Rural Police in Cirme No.283/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 41(1)(D) and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, investigation has been carried out and a charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
4
another accused is concerned, the matter is said to have been referred to the Lok Adalat and the accused has been discharged on account of the above legal infirmity, which was also glaring in that case.
By the same token of reasoning, the Counsel for the petitioner seeks that the proceedings be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as there is apparent illegality.
with the Counsel for the petitioner.
Consequently, the procedure followed being found to be illegal, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC 154/2012 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dakshina Kannada is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings registered under Sections 41(1)(D) and 102 CrPC and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act can be quashed for illegal registration without Magistrate permission.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ismail
The State of Karnataka
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
