Allowed

Shivaprasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2021CRL.P/58/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filed to quash FIR and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court held that Magistrate failed to apply mind and pass a separate order on the requisition, violating Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, and consequently allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed.

Shivaprasad Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 58 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

1 . SHIVAPRASAD LATE K SATHYALEELA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KUDUPA CULTURAL ASSOCIATION RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶7

2 . PREM KUMAR S/O THIPPESIDDAYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HOSAKERE VILLAGE MIDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK

¶8

TUMKUR - 572 132

¶9

3 . HANUMANTHARAYA S/O BALAIHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.4245 A CROSS ROAD 1^ST MAIN BEHIND DODDAMMA TEMPLE DR B R AMBEDKAR COLLEGE SHAMPUR, BANGALORE - 560 072

¶10

4 . MANJUNATH

¶11

S/O JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.1172/40 ARMUGAM BUILDING

¶12

2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD

¶13

¶14

CHOLARAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 023

¶15

5 . RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O HONNAIHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 20^TH CROSS SHIVARAM TEMPLE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 047

¶16

MADHU S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 3^RD CROSS GOVINDHSHETTYPALYA ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE-560 100

¶17

7 . MANJUNATH S/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.906 3RD CROSS RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 ..PETITIONERS (BY SMT : BHARATH KUMAR V, ADV.) AND:

¶18

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 2 . INSPECTOR OF POLICE ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE – 560 025 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.422/2019 DATED 05.12.2019 ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION DATED 05.12.2019 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT- 1 MAYO HALL BENGALURU WHEREIN THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 7/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE A AND A1).

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.

¶24

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C

¶25

praying this court to quash the FIR bearing No. 422/2019 dated 5.12.2019 along with the information dated 5.12.2019 registered with the respondent Ashok Nagar Police Station and pending on the file of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, wherein the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offences punishable under

¶26

¶27

sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and pass such other orders.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents, based on the credible information that some people are indulged in playing dart game, conducted the raid and seized an amount of Rs.3,200/- from them and also seized 184 tokens at the instance of the petitioners herein and they have committed the offence under sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein.

¶29

Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein prayed this court to quash the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners herein mainly on the ground that section 155(2) of Cr.P.C has not been complied with. On perusal of the FIR registered by the respondents’ police, it is evident that the same is done under the powers vested under section 154 of Cr.P.C for alleged non-cognizable offences under sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police

¶30

¶31

Act. It is also contended that on reading of the entire information dated 5.12.2019 preferred by respondent No.2 makes it undisputed that there are no averments as to the nature of the game being played and as to how the same would amount to a game of chance and in the event of absence of such averments, the same is liable to be quashed. The counsel also would vehemently contend that page 19 of the petition clearly discloses that an endorsement has been made on the requisition itself “perused the requisition and permitted” and the same is not in compliance with section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and no separate order has been passed by the learned Magistrate by applying his judicious mind and hence it requires interference of this court.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the State would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate before giving the permission has applied his mind and given the permission and the same is in compliance of section

¶33

¶34

155(2) of Cr.P.C and hence there cannot be quashing of proceedings.

¶35

Having heard the petitioners counsel and also the

¶36

counsel appearing for the State, it is not in dispute that the offences which have been invoked against the petitioners are non-cognizable offences. When the credible information has been received where requisition was given to the learned Magistrate vide the letter dated 5.12.2019, on perusal of the requisition it is seen that the learned Magistrate has made an endorsement that he has received the requisition from the investigating officer and except mentioning that he has perused the requisition and permitted, he has not applied his judicious mind before granting the permission and no separate order has been passed and the said order has been passed on the requisition itself. While giving permission, the Magistrate has to pass separate orders and there can be subjective satisfaction for permitting the investigating officer to investigate the matter and the same is absent and

¶37

¶38

mechanical order has been passed. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is not in compliance with section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶39

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶40

following : -

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(a) The petition is allowed.

¶43

(b) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners

¶44

herein are quashed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

ckl

Shivaprasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaprasad 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

N. J. Ravishankar Vs State of Karnataka

K.M. Noban Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Hemavathi I B Vs Kalyanakumar

Sri M Vikram Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. G. Prashanthkumar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S K Suresh Vs State by