Quashed

Sri.Anand S/O Shidram Akkimaradi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021CRL.P/101728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving alleged election offences and inadequate investigation. The court held that the procedure under Section 155 Cr.P.C. was not followed as the SHO approached the magistrate instead of the informant, and the magistrate's cryptic order was insufficient.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.1912/2018 registered for offences punishable under Section 171(E) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 123 (A) of the R.P.Act are set aside.

Sri.Anand S/O Shidram Akkimaradi Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101728/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri Anand S/o Shidram Akkimaradi, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o: Nidagundi, Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.

¶9

Sri Ranjeet S/o Bheemappa Bajantri, Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Nidagundi, Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.

¶10

Sri Annasaheb S/o Devappa Khemalapure Age: 51 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Nidagundi, Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.

¶11

Sri Sadashiv S/o Shankar Ghorapade Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Nidagundi, Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi.

¶12

Sri Duryodhan S/o Mahalingappa Aihole,

¶13

¶14

Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture & Member of Legislative Assembly, R/o: Nidagundi, Tal: Raibag, Dist: Belagavi. … PETITIONERS

¶15

(By Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate)

¶16

AND:

¶17

The State of Karnataka Through Chikodi Police Station, Now rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Dharwad, Bench at Dharwad. … RESPONDENT

¶18

(By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP)

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1912/2018 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Chikodi registered for the offences p/u/s 171(E) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 123(A) of R.P. Act, order sheet marked at Annexure-A, insofar as petitioners are concerned.

¶20

This Criminal Petition pertaining to Dharwad Bench, coming on for orders at Principal Bench, Bengaluru through Video Conference, this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioners have challenged the validity of the proceedings in C.C.No.1912/2018 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikodi registered for the offences punishable under Section 171(E) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 123 (A) of the R.P.Act.

¶23

¶24

The learned counsel for petitioners contend that

¶25

the procedure under Section 155 Cr.P.C., being mandatory, has not been adhered to and that the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case in terms of Section 155 (2)

¶26

Cr.P.C., and the directions of this court passed in Crl.P 101997/2019 by its order dated 10.12.2019 has clearly enunciated the procedure to be followed, which is declaration of law and procedure which is as mandated under Section 155 Cr.P.C., ought to have been followed.

¶27

It is submitted that in the case of Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli v. The State of Karnataka and

¶28

Ors . reported in 2017 (1) AKR 461, this court has observed that mandate of Section 155 Cr.P.C., requires that the SHO is required to refer the informant to the Magistrate to seek orders of the jurisdictional Magistrate for issue of directions to the police for investigation of the case.

¶29

¶30

It is submitted that in the present case, the SHO

¶31

having approached the Magistrate as is evident from the letter dated 11.05.2018 enclosed at Page No.38, and the Magistrate having endorsed the word "permitted" on such communication, clearly the procedure as mandated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., not having been followed, all proceedings in pending case are required to be set aside.

¶32

In light of the law laid down in

¶33

Crl.P No.101997/2019 dated 10.12.2019 reiterating the position of law as well as the law laid down by this court in the case of A.H.Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2547 in Crl.P 4954/2014, the petition is required to be allowed while noting that the requisition to the Magistrate is required to be that of the informant. Whereas, in the present case, the SHO himself has approached the Magistrate which is in violation of the law laid down as per the judgments referred to above which lay down that the informant must be referred to the Magistrate. The other ground is that the Magistrate has

¶34

¶35

merely endorsed the word "permitted" without applying his mind and it is required that the Magistrate has to pass a separate speaking order after going through the requisition, and accordingly permission granted by the Magistrate by the cryptic word "permitted" does not stand legal scrutiny.

¶36

Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.1912/2018 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikodi registered for the offences punishable under Section 171(E) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 123 (A) of the R.P.Act, are set aside while reserving liberty to initiate action if permissible under the law as regards to the facts made out.

¶37

The petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Np/-

Sri.Anand S/O Shidram Akkimaradi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Anand S/O Shidram Akkimaradi 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

Gurunathagouda S/O Ninganagouda Goudar Vs the State of Karnataka

Somashekharayya and Ors. Vs Revansiddayya and Ors.

Rahematullah Vs Devendrappa

The Managing Director Vs Kalyan S/O Shankar Navalgundakar

The Managing Director, Vs U Lakshmi W/O Late U Honnuraswamy

The Executive Engineer (Elec) Vs Ningappa S/O. Siddappa Kuri