Allowed

Sri. Suresh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2020CRL.P/3992/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings against accused No.11 for allowing gambling. The Court held that since the alleged offence was non-cognizable, the police were legally required to obtain magistrate permission before investigation. The failure to obtain such permission rendered the investigation illegal and invalid, warranting quashing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.501/2016 pending before JMFC, Mysore are quashed.

Sri. Suresh Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl..P.No.3992/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3992 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Sri Suresh S/o late G.V.Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 63 years, Owner and Manager Suvarna Residency Hotel, Near Kuvempunagara Complex, Mysore City-570023.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri.Krishna Swamy S, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

State of Karnataka, Kuvempunagara Police Station, Mysuru. Rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

(By Sri.K.Nageshwrappa, HCGP)

¶16

This criminal petition is filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. praying to quash the complaint and issuance of process against accused No.11 in C.C.No.501/2016 pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru.

Crl..P.No.3992/2020

This criminal petition coming on for orders, through video conference, this day, the court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri. K. Nageswarappa, learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent.

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of complaint and issuance of process against accused No.11 in C.C.No.501/2016 pending on the file of 1st Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on receiving credible information that some persons are playing andar bahaar in Room No.211 of Suvarna Residency, Mysore raided the same at 7.00 p.m. and also mahazar was drawn up. The police themselves took cognizance of the offence, carried out investigation and laid a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 11. The accused No.11 being owner of Suvarna Residency is arrayed as an accused on the ground that accused

¶25

Crl..P.No.3992/2020

¶26

¶27

No.11 permitted other accused to gamble in the said lodge.

¶28

Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that when the credible information was received, the police did not know whether it is a cognizable offence or noncognizable offence and the police had raided the location and found accused No.1 to 11 gambling. Hence, they obtained permission from the jurisdictional magistrate. He further submits that the concerned police do not have the luxury of time in such similar to the appropriate magistrate and thereafter to proceed in the matter. On these grounds, the petition ought to be dismissed.

¶29

Heard Sri. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageswarappa, learned HCGP. Perused the papers.

¶30

This Court time and again, has held that when the non-cognizable offences are alleged to have been committed, the jurisdictional police has to seek

¶31

Crl..P.No.3992/2020

¶32

¶33

permission from the jurisdictional magistrate before carrying out the investigation. Investigation without permission with regard to the non-cognizable offence would result in affecting the entire process which has occurred here. As such, the procedure followed by the jurisdictional police is not in accordance with law.

¶34

I am of the considered opinion that the proceeding cannot be continued and as such, the proceedings in C.C.No.501/2016 pending on the file of 1st Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore are quashed.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

SSD

Sri. Suresh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Suresh 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

B a Harish Gowda Vs Ravi Kumar

Mr Joel Preetham Dsouza Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Muniyappa @ Ravi M @ Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Gurav Rajendra Mittal Vs Sakshi Mittal

Sri Bojegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Archana Swamy P Vs the State of Karnataka