Allowed

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha v. State by

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/3592/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that investigation by Sub-Inspector under Karnataka Education Act Section 137 was incompetent. Petitioners discharged from IPC Sections 417, 420 and Education Act sections. Proceedings quashed allowing fresh action per Section 137.

What did the court decide?

Discharged petitioners from offences under IPC Sections 417 and 420 and Karnataka Education Act Sections 117 and 118. Quashed entire proceedings.

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha Vs State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3592 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha,

¶9

Son of Lingareddy Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 22 years, Enumamula Village, Warrangal Taluk and District Telangana State-506006.

¶10

Sri Gopinath G., Son of Shankar, Aged about 25 years, No.032-150, Chettiyar Village, And Post, Chettiyar Mandal, Jayashankar District, Telangana State-506356.

¶11

…Petitioners (By Sri J.Sudhakar, Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

State by Soladevanahalli Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001. …Respondent (By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the C.J.M., Bengaluru Rural District in C.C.No.11172/2018 by allowing this criminal petition and discharge the petitioner/accused No.1 and 2 from the charge sheeted offences punishable under Section 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 117 and 118 of K.E.Act.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the petitioners’ counsel.

¶19

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

for setting aside the order dated 9.4.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.11172/2018 in so far as it relates to not discharging the petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case is that accused no.1 was

¶22

supposed to write examination on 30.12.2017 at Acharya College, but in his place accused no.2 wrote the examination. Therefore both of them came to be

¶23

¶24

prosecuted for the offences under Sections 117 and 118 of the Karnataka Education Act (for short ‘Act’) and Section 417 and 420 of IPC. Since Section 137 of the Act envisages that the offences under Sections 115 to 122 of the said Act are to be investigated by an officer of and above the rank of Inspector of Police, the petitioners sought their discharge by making an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. as in this case, charge sheet was filed by Sub-Inspector of Police. The court below having noticed the fact that in relation to the offences under Section 117 and 118 of the Act, the Sub-Inspector of Police was incompetent to file charge sheet, discharged the petitioners of these two offences, but rejected the application in so far the offences under Section 417 and 420 IPC are concerned.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel argues that the petitioners

¶27

ought to have been discharged even for IPC offences, as according to him, Section 118 of the Act pertains to impersonation. Therefore it is his argument that petition is to be allowed.

¶28

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in respect of IPC offences, the Sub-Inspector of Police is competent to investigate and file charge sheet. The charge sheet thus filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police does not suffer from infirmity and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶29

If Section 137 of the Act is read, it becomes clear that the court can take cognizance of an offence on the complaint made by competent authority or with the previous sanction of such authority. That means, any other person or officer, who has obtained sanction

¶30

¶31

from the competent authority can file a complaint in respect of offences under Sections 115 to 122 of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 137 of the Act states that offences punishable under Sections 115 to 122 of the Act, shall be investigated by an officer of and above the rank of Inspector of Police. That means to say that only the police officer of and above the rank of Inspector of Police can file charge sheet. But in this case, what has happened is, charge sheet has been filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, who is not permitted to investigate as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 137 of the Act. Section 118 of the Act actually pertains to taking action for contravening Section 25, which relates to prohibition of impersonation in the examination. In the case on hand, the prosecution case is that accused no.1 impersonated accused no.2 i.e., it falls within the scope of Section 25 and Section 118 of the Act. Sections 417 and 410 IPC deals with

¶32

¶33

cheating. I do not think that in the facts and circumstances, these two IPC provisions can be invoked in the charge sheet. Therefore the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in entirety and discharged the accused. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The accused are discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC also. Since charge sheet is filed by a police officer not authorized to hold investigation, entire proceedings are quashed. However, this order does not come in the way of taking action afresh against the petitioners in accordance with Section 137 of the Act.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha v. State by

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 Amjad Mohammad Shafi Vs State of Karnataka

Deepesh @ Deepu Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Graduates Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri Kottada Malleshappa

P Manohara Vs State of Karnataka by