Allowed

Mahantesh B Udapudi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2019CRL.P/101267/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for violation of election laws, holding serious procedural irregularities due to Magistrate not applying mind to grant permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1227/2016 pending before the assigned Civil Judge.

Mahantesh B Udapudi Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101267/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHANTESH B. UDAPUDI, S/O BASAVARAJ UDAPUDI, AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, LOKAPURA, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA.

¶8

BHIMAPPA V. HALKI, S/O VITTHAL HALKI, AGE: ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O LAXANATTI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA.

¶9

PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAPURA POLICE, LOKAPURA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶13

RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 1227/2016 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC COURT, MUDHOL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 171-H OF IPC & ETC.

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1227/2016 (Lokapur Police Station Crime No. 52/2016) pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Mudhol, for the offence punishable u/S 171-H of IPC.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant , namely, the Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Lokapur, who was on election duty, noticed that on 10.02.2016, the petitioner Mahantesh Basavaraj Udapudi, being the candidate from Lokapur Zilla Panchayat Elections, was distributing pamplets, posters, etc. in violation of the election code of conduct, thereby he has committed the offence punishable u/S 171-H of IPC. On registering the case and upon conclusion of the investigation the Police have laid the

¶19

¶20

charge sheet against the accused in C.C. No.

¶21

1227/2016 for the offence punishable u/S 171-H of IPC on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Mudhol. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the revision petition for quashing the proceedings.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the prosecution papers.

¶23

The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Election Officer, FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has passed a cryptic order permitting the investigation. Accordingly, the investigation was done and charge sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner herein. The offence alleged is u/S 171-H of the IPC which is

¶24

¶25

punishable with the maximum punishment of fine of Rs.500/- and it is a non cognizable offence. Thus, the Police had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter without obtaining permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. There is no proper compliance of Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.

¶26

In view of Sec. 155(1) of Cr.P.C. when information is given to the Officer in charge of a Police Station regarding commission of an offence which is non cognizable in nature, then it shall be entered or caused to be entered a substance of information in a book kept by such Officer in such form of the State Government made prescribed and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

¶27

According to Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. the Police Officer shall have to investigate the non-cognizable

¶28

¶29

offence with the prior permission of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Therefore, what is contemplated under this provision is that, the Police Officer need not go to the Magistrate to seek permission but he has to refer the informant to the Magistrate. Apart from that, the Magistrate, if any such informant is referred to, has to peruse various contents of the complaint and then satisfy himself whether the grounds stated in the FIR requires investigation or not. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has to necessarily apply his mind and pass appropriate orders.

¶30

In the instant case as could be seen from the document at page No. 34, in revision petition file, the P.S.I. of Lokapur Police Station has submitted a requisition to the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Mudhol, seeking permission and the learned Magistrate has made a cryptic note as “permitted”.

¶31

¶32

Thus it is evident that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and has not assigned any reasons whether there are any grounds for investigation on the basis of such complaint. Except using the word “permitted” there is no indication so as to confirm that the learned Magistrate has followed the procedure prescribed as per Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons the proceedings initiated after filing the charge sheet cannot be sustained in law as there are serious procedural irregularities which amounts to illegality, which is not curable in nature. As such, the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No. 1227/2016 (Lokapur Police Station Crime No. 52/2016) pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil

¶36

¶37

Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court, Mudhol, registered for

¶38

the offence punishable u/S 171-H of IPC, are hereby

¶39

quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

bvv

Mahantesh B Udapudi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahantesh B Udapudi v. the 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

Anmol @ Sonya S/O Sudhakar Varute Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Madhavi W/O Venkatesh Mahajan Vs Venkatesh S/O Vishnu Mahajan

Sikandar S/O Abdul Khadar Alur Vs the State of Karnataka

Shahidbeg @ Bablu S/O Iqbalgeg Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Althaf a S/O Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimappa v. Halki S/O Vitthal Halki Vs the State of Karnataka