Allowed

Madhu Kumar @ Madhu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2017CRL.P/26/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under the Karnataka Police Act. The court held that initiating search and seizure and lodging an FIR for a non-cognizable offence was impermissible, vesting the Vishramala.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.599/2015 were quashed. An intervening I.A. was disposed of as a consequence.

Madhu Kumar @ Madhu Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.26 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Madhu Kumar @ Madhu, Son of Ashoka, Aged about 33 years,

¶9

Mallika, Son of Rameshgowda, Aged about 35 years,

¶10

Vikram, Son of Gopal Gowda, Aged about 35 years,

¶11

Arvind, Son of Subbegowda, Aged about 35 years,

¶12

Theju,

¶13

Son of Shankar, Aged about 24 years,

¶14

Jeevan,

¶15

¶16

Son of Mohan Kumar, Aged about 28 years,

¶17

Mahesha, Son of Jithendra, Aged about 25 years,

¶18

Roshan, Son of Ramesha, Aged about 25 years,

¶19

Ramesha @ Aruna, Son of Late Chandregowda, Aged about 25 years,

¶20

All are Residing at Biradahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District – 34. …PETITIONERS

¶21

(By Shri Pratheep K.C., Advocate)

¶22

AND:

¶23

State of Karnataka, Represented by the Sakaleshpura Rural Police, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District – 573 201.

¶24

Police Officer, DY.SP., Sakaleshpura Sub Division, Sakaleshpura Town, Hassan – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS

¶25

¶26

(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader) *****

¶27

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.599/2015 on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakaleshpura, Hassan District.

¶28

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent.

¶31

The petitioners are before this court in the following circumstances:

¶32

The police are said to have registered a case on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Police Officer attached to Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, on the allegations that on 26.06.2015, on credible information having been received that certain persons are indulging in gambling at a hotel belonging to one Ramesh - the complainant, the police officer along with

¶33

¶34

his team had rushed to the spot about 8.15 p.m. and found that there were about nine persons sitting around a table and playing cards and he noticed that they were playing a game of chance, as apparently by the manner in which the cards were arranged and the large amount of money that was found on a seizure of the incriminating materials. It is thereafter that an First Information Report has been lodged for an offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. It is this which is sought to be questioned in the present petition.

¶35

It is pointed out that the offences alleged are noncognizable and therefore, the question of conducting a search and seizure and thereafter lodging an FIR, is lopsided and was impermissible, vitiating the entire procedure, as laid down in a catena of decisions.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader does not dispute this position.

¶37

¶38

Therefore, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.599/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sakaleshpura, Hassan District, is

¶39

quashed.

¶40

I.A.1/2017 is disposed of as a consequence.

¶41

Sd/- JUDGE

¶42

Madhu Kumar @ Madhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Kumar @ Madhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sureshanaika @ Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Surendra Balekai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Preetham Ramesh Vs Smt. Tripthi

Anirudh Changkakoti Vs the State of Karnataka

R. M. Saleem Ulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha Vs State of Karnataka