Dismissed

Mr. Sanjeeva Poojary v. State by Kota Police Station

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021CRL.P/2280/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for offences under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 involving a matka business. The court held that the charge-sheet stage barred such intervention.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1913/2018 was dismissed.

Mr. Sanjeeva Poojary Vs State by Kota Police Station — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2280 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Mr. Sanjeeva Poojary Major S/o Chikka Poojary R/at Arjun Nilaya Vandse Village Kundapura Taluk Udupi District – 576 233.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Dinesh Kumar K. Rao – Advocate for Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty - Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State by Kota Police Station Rep. by office of State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

(By Sri. Rahul Rai K – HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1913/2018 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kundapura for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 78(i), 78(iii) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 in so far as petitioner is concern.

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Sri Dinesh Kumar K.Rao, learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner is present before the Court physically and submits that he has secured the message over the phone from Sri K.Prasanna Shetty, counsel for the petitioner who is on record that he is not feeling well. But the aforesaid counsel is not in an explainable position on what ground the counsel for the petitioner is not feeling well. This observation has been made in this matter because of this kind of submission made by the petitioner’s counsel. However, Learned HCGP for respondent – State is present before the Court physically.

¶21

In this petition the petitioner is seeking for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated by the Kota Police Station, Udupi District in C.C.No.1913/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 78(I), 78(III) of the Karnataka Police Act 1963.

¶22

The ASI – Ananda Venkata filed a complaint report and based upon his complaint report, the Kota

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Police registered the case in Crime No.190/2018 by recording the FIR on 11.08.2018 for the aforesaid offences which is reflected in the substances of the FIR. Subsequent to registration of the crime by the police having the jurisdiction that the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.1913/2018 which is pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura.

¶25

When once the FIR has been recorded by the police having jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., subsequently the domain is vested with the Investigating Agency to proceed for investigation by following the requisite conditions under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Agency shall record the statement of witnesses and so also secure the material documents and draw the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Similarly, the Investigating Agency should follow the requisite conditions under Section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii) relating to the offences maintained in the schedule in the classification that the I.O. has to lay the charge-sheet under the relevant provisions within 90

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

days or 60 days as regards the offences lugged against the accused in the FIR.

¶28

But at a cursory glance of the substances in the FIR as well as the report made by the police having the jurisdiction who took a raid at the public places and that this petitioner was involved in matka business. The same reflects in the materials at Document No.2 and so also, recorded in the FIR. It is nothing but as wood winking the public in general and that kind of business has been done by the accused persons for the purpose of securing the benefits which is against the ethics of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so also relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel who is present before the Court seeking short accommodation does not arise for consideration. When once the charge sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer, it is the domain vested with the trial Court to decide the issue in accordance with law. But the power vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously, judicially and consciously. But this case does not come under the

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

purview of the said doctrine even keeping in view the specific objectivity and scope of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

DKB

Mr. Sanjeeva Poojary v. State by Kota Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sanjeeva Poojary v. State by Kota Police Station

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

Sri G Maheshkumar Vs State of Karnataka

V Shanmugam (A-2) Vs State by

Sri. M. I. Mohammed Haneef Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rahul Jain Vs M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd.

Arun Kumar v Vs M/S Prajwal Hometel

Arun Kumar v Vs Vinod Krishna Murthy