Allowed

Mohamad Asif v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2020CRL.P/3154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a charge sheet filed under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. The holding was based on the injury sustained by the petitioners due to the non-compliance with mandatory procedure requiring prior permission from the Magistrate before search and seizure.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet in C.R. No.57/2014 filed in C.C. No.291/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is quashed.

Mohamad Asif Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

1 CRL.P. No.3154 OF 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3154 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMAD ASIF AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O UMMARABBA R/O GUNAVANTHI VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK

¶9

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101

¶10

2. SURESHA H K

¶11

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O KALSAPPA GOWDA R/O HOSURU BANDIGADI VILLAGE, KOPPA TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101

¶12

UMESHA RAJU MOWLYA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O RAJU MOWLYA R/O MOWLYA KOPPA TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101

¶14

4. NEELESH

¶15

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O SADASHIVA R/O RAGHAVENDA NAGARA KOPPA

¶16

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577001

¶17

SAMEER

¶18

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O HASANABBA R/O GUNAVANTHI ROAD

¶19

CRL.P. No.3154 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

KOPPA TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101

¶22

ANILA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAPPA R/O HAKLU MANE NARVE VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101 ...PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SUB INSPECTOR KOPPA POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101

¶26

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.57/2014 BY THE KOPPA TOWN, P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, IN C.C. NO.291/2014 AT KOPPA.

¶29

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for

¶33

quashing of the charge sheet filed in Crime

¶34

CRL.P. No.3154 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

No.57/2014 by the Koppa Town Police Station, Chikkamagalur District for the offence punishable under Section 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Koppa in C.C.No.291/2014.

¶37

It is alleged that the respondent instituted a case against the petitioners under the Police Act alleging that on 25.04.2014 at 10.30 p.m., on receiving credible information the respondent police proceeded to Pavithra Lodge, Door No.102, Koppa Town, Chickkamagaluru, where they found the petitioners and others playing andar-bahar game. The complainant seized playing cards and also the monies laying there and registered a case against the petitioners and a suo-moto complaint came to be filed under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.

¶38

Sri.Girish Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the offence alleged

¶39

CRL.P. No.3154 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

against the petitioners being non bailable in nature, it is but required for the complainant firstly to obtain permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the matter as also to register a complaint and only thereafter to conduct search and seizure. The said procedure not having followed learned counsel submits that the entire procedure is bad in law and required to be quashed. He relies on judgments passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5466/2015 (Shekarappa B.R and others vs. The Sub Inspector), Crl.P No.9413/2016 Crl.P No.9413/2016 (Dhanjaya and others vs. The State of Karnataka), Crl.P No.2229/2015 (Nagaraju M and others vs. The Sub-Inspector), Crl.P No.7217/2108 (Usha and another vs. S.Sudha and another), Crl.P No.3816/2019 (Nanjegowda and others vs. The State of Karnataka) in support of his contentions.

¶42

CRL.P. No.3154 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

Per contra, Sri.Vinayaka V.S., learned HCGP submits that the police having received the credible information, visited the spot. At that juncture, the police having no other option but to seize the offending items since if the police were required to approach jurisdictional Magistrate, the evidence would have been lost and accused would have absconded. Hence, he submits that the action taken by the jurisdictional police is proper and is in accordance with law.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the papers.

¶46

A perusal of the proceedings and the papers indicates that provision of Section 155 (2) requiring the jurisdictional police to seek for prior permission from jurisdictional Magistrate has not been complied with. In view thereof, I am of the considered view that jurisdictional police could not

¶47

CRL.P. No.3154 OF 2020

¶48

¶49

have conducted a search and seizure of the premises and thereafter filed a complaint against the petitioners. As such, the petition is allowed. The charge sheet in CR. No.57/2014 filed in C.C.No.291/2014 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Koppa for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Prs*

Mohamad Asif v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamad Asif 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kurshid Unnisa Vs Smt Phiilomina

Shivakumar. K @ Kodanda Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Shikhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Punit Sahni Vs Karnataka State Open University

Udya Prakasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Adam Vs State of Karnataka