Allowed

Mohiddin v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2021CRL.P/6223/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matka gambling case, holding that police violated Section 155(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. by apprehending the accused and seizing materials before seeking Magistrate permission from the court.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1175/2021 arising out of Crime No.101/2021 were quashed. Seized properties were ordered to be confiscated to the State.

Mohiddin Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6223 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHIDDIN S/O ABDUL AJIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O AZAD NAGAR, MALEBENNUR TOWN, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 530.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.K.N. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MALEBENNUR POLICE STATION, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE, REPTD. BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1175/2021 ARISING

¶15

¶16

OUT OF CR.NO.101/2021 REGISTERED BY MALEBENNUR P.S., HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HARIHAR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 78(iii) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by petitioner under Section

¶20

482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet filed against the petitioner by the Police in C.C.No.1175/2021 arising out of the Crime

¶21

No.101/2021 registered by Malebennur Police Station, Harihar Taluk, Davanagere District on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar for the offence punishable under Section 78(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short "the Act").

¶22

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

¶23

the petitioner and learned High Court Government

¶24

¶25

Pleader for respondent – State and perused the records.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that a constable namely Basavaraj, CPC-336 alleged that the petitioner herein was said to be calling public and playing matka by announcing that he would take once one rupee and give Rs.80/- to the public and after getting credible information from an informer, a complaint came to be filed with the police. Based on the said complaint, the SHO of Malebennur Police Station, raised NCR No.27/2021 and said to have forwarded the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate and obtained the permission for registering a case and for investigating the same as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the police arrested the petitioner and seized a ball pen, a chit and Rs.5,500/and filed charge sheet. Thereafter, learned Magistrate

¶27

¶28

took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued process.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶30

that on looking into the permission granted by the learned Magistrate, it shows that an information was received that some unknown persons are playing matka in public place at Banni Mantapa Circle, Nandi Gudi, but the cause title shows the name of the accused person as "Mohiddin" and the requisition placed by the Police also reveals the name of the accused as well as name of the complainant but the permission granted by the Magistrate shows that the informant was not sent to the Court. There is contradiction between the information received by the police and referring the same to the Court for seeking permission. Even otherwise, on perusal of the NCR and the requisition appears that the police have already apprehended the accused, seized all incriminating

¶31

¶32

materials and thereafter placed a requisition for proceeding with the matter in accordance with Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that even otherwise no independent witness was examined to show that the accused was playing matka, there is also no witness to show the persons who were benefited and received money from the accused from the game of matka. Such being the case, continuing the proceedings against the accused is against the process of law and hence prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the accused.

¶33

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶34

objected the petition and contended that the police after receiving the information, received the NCR and after obtaining the permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, apprehended the accused and seized the material and thereafter FIR was registered and hence,

¶35

¶36

there is no violation of provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner-accused and learned High Court Pleader for the respondent-State, a perusal of the same establishes that the information was said to be received by the Police on 25.06.2021, which reveals that the report of the police Constable, Basavaraja T. and NCR have been registered by the Police in NCR No.27/2021 and at the same page, SHO has stated that raid was conducted at 3.00 p.m. and seized materials under the panchanama and registered a case in Crime No.101/2021, which document has already been sent to the Magistrate along with the requisition, where the Magistrate has endorsed as seen on 25.06.2021, whereas the requisition sent to the Police is also available, which shows that the requisition contains the name of the accused and the police constable, who

¶39

¶40

filed the complaint and then the learned Magistrate ordered to put up order sheet and thereafter granted permission. On perusal of the articles, which reveals the name of the accused and all details of the articles, whereas the permission granted by the Magistrate reveals that the information received is against unknown persons were playing matka and the learned Magistrate also stated that the SHO has not referred the informant with such requisition as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. The permission granted by the Magistrate and requisition made by the Police are contradictory to each other. It appears that the Police, after apprehending the accused and after registering NCR have made an endorsement, which was sent to the Court for obtaining the permission, but in fact everything was done at the same time and the details contained in the complaint of Police Constable, Basavaraja T. and the requisition clearly shows that the

¶41

¶42

police had already apprehended the accused and after keeping the accused in custody, they prepared NCR, requisition for obtaining permission from the Magistrate and after obtaining the permission, they registered a case. The FIR also reveals all the details of the seizure in the FIR. A perusal of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3759/2021 dated 07.06.2021, (Ranganatha & another Vs. The State of Karnataka) and a perusal of the entire record clearly reveals that the charge sheet does not reveal the name of the witnesses who were benefited out of the matka and there is clear violation of the procedure under Section 155(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C. by the police. Therefore, continuing to allow the proceedings is abuse of process of law and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.

¶43

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶47

All further proceedings in C.C.No.1175/2021 arising out of Crime No.101/2021 registered by Malebennur Police Station, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar are hereby quashed.

¶48

The properties are ordered to be confiscated to

¶49

the State.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

BMC

Mohiddin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohiddin 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

Sri Kumar Swamy N R Vs State by

Prabal Ghosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamal Jajo Vishwakarma @ Kamal @ Jajo @ Amar Vs State by Koramangala Police

Sri P Ramesh Vs Sri a Murugesh

Pazhaniyappa Vellumayil Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Angappan Vs the State by Challakere Police