Allowed

Udya Prakasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2020CRL.P/4592/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench quashed the charge-sheet filed against petitioners for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. The Court held that the police failed to comply with Section 155(2) CrPC by not obtaining prior magistrate permission before conducting search and seizure.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet in Crime No.74/2014 and the proceedings pending on file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Koppa in C.C.No.563/2014 are quashed.

Udya Prakasha Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4592 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

UDYA PRAKASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O KULASO L A

¶10

R/O MURUDESHWARA LAYOUT BINTHRAVALLI VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK

¶11

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶12

2. RAVI

¶13

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O BIDENGAR R/O KADABAGERE VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU TQ AND DIST-577101.

¶14

3. MANOHARA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O ANANDA R/O RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA KOPPA TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶16

4. SURAKSHA

¶17

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O RAJAPPA GOWDA R/O SIGODU VILLAGE BALEHONNURU

¶18

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶19

5. DINESHA

¶20

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O NAGESHA R/O AYRAVEDIKA COLLEGE KACHAGAL ROAD

¶21

¶22

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶23

BINTHRAVALLI VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶24

6. RAFIQ

¶25

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O ISMAHIL R/O AGRAHARA N R PURA, N R PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶26

7. SAMEER

¶27

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O HASANABBA R/O GUNAVANTHE ROAD HARANDURU VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶28

8. GIRISH

¶29

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O TAMMAIAH R/O GUBBEBYLU JAYAPURA KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶30

9. SATHISHA

¶31

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O RAJAPPA R/O HALAGESHWARA ROAD JAYAPURA, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶32

10.NEELESH KUMAR

¶33

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SADASHIVA R/O RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA KOPPA TOWN AND TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶34

11.MITHRA

¶35

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O TAMMAIAH GOWDA R/O KADATALU NILUVAGILU HARIHARAPURA CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶38

12.NARESH NARVEY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O KADAPPA GOWDA R/O NARVE VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶39

13.SUDEER KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SANJEEVA POOJARI R/O ARURU JANKSHAN TANUKI VILLAGE, KOPPA CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101. ... PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶45

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.074/2014 BY THE KOPPA POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOPPA IN C.C.NO.563/2014.

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the charge sheet filed in Crime No.74/2014 by the Koppa Police Station, Chikkamagalur District for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Koppa in C.C.No.563/2014.

¶52

It is alleged that the respondent instituted a case against the petitioners under the Police Act alleging that on 16.08.2014 at 15 hours on receiving credible information, the respondentpolice proceeded to Hattikuli Estate, Herambapura Village, Koppa Taluk, 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

¶53

¶54

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶55

a suo-moto complaint came to be filed under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶59

another vs. S.Sudha and another), Crl.P No.3816/2019 (Nanjegowda and others vs. The State of Karnataka) in support of his contentions.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

A perusal of the proceedings and the papers indicates that provision of Section 155 (2)

¶63

¶64

CRL.P. No.4592 OF 2020

¶65

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 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 Crime No.74/2014 by the Koppa Police Station, Chikkamagalur District for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Koppa in C.C.No.563/2014 is quashed.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Prs*

Udya Prakasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udya Prakasha 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

Mohamad Asif Vs the State of Karnataka

Adam Vs State of Karnataka