Allowed

Sri Suresh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2021WP/195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court quashed the First Information Report, the complaint, the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance against the petitioners for non-cognizable offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

What did the court decide?

The impugned first information report, the complaint, the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance were quashed.

Sri Suresh Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.195/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.195/2018 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI SURESH S/O SATHYAVELU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.77, 2^ND CROSS Y.M.SHALA, J.C. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002

¶10

SRI KUMAR S/O THIBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.15, 9^TH MAIN 22^ND CROSS, BHUVAN MAGADI ROAD, K.P.AGRAHARA BENGALURU – 560 053

¶11

SRI ARUN S/O LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.04, 15^TH CROSS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 086

¶12

SRI MADHU S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KALMADI DODDI KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 446

¶13

SRI AKRAM S/O RIYAZ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶14

W.P.No.195/2018

¶15

¶16

R/AT SULTHANPALYA R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032

¶17

SRI SHADIK S/O NOORALLA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.21, OPP: KARNATAKA BANK DEVAIAH PARK, BENGALURU – 560 021

¶18

SRI DEEPAK S/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.143, 1^ST CROSS 3^RD MAIN, KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU – 560 085

¶19

SRI MAHESH S/O SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.143, 1^ST CROSS 3^RD MAIN, KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU – 560 085

¶20

SRI MADHUSUDHAN S/O RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.47, 7^TH CROSS KANAKANAGAR, SULTHANPALYA R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032

¶21

SRI SHARATH S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.303, MATHRU KRUPA 15^TH MAIN, 15^TH CROSS MANJUNATHA NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 010

¶22

SRI HARI S/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.21/29, 6^TH CROSS HOSUR MAIN ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU – 560 100

¶23

W.P.No.195/2018

¶24

¶25

SRI GOPAL S/O.GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.93, SREE RAMA NAGARA, KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU – 560 079

¶26

SRI KANTHARAJU S/O MUTTHAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KANAKENAHALLI SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT- 561 204

¶27

SRI SURESH S/O RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.30/5, 22^ND MAIN ROAD NEAR GOOD, MARENAHALLI J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078

¶28

SRI MANJUNATHA S/O RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT SADENAHALLI VILLAGE HARADESHANA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 561 203

¶29

SRI LOHITH KUMAR S/O SHIVALINGA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 1^ST CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 064

¶30

SRI MALLESH S/O GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 2^ND MAIN GAVIPURAM, LAKSHMIPURA BENGALURU – 560 019

¶31

SRI SANDEEP SAVANTH S/O DINKAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OWNER OF S.P.CULTURAL ASSOCIATION

¶32

W.P.No.195/2018

¶33

¶34

R/ AT NO.180/1, S.C.R, RAJIVAGANDHI CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 020 …PETITIONERS

¶35

(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR.V. ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND :

¶37

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 020

¶38

POLICE INSPECTOR SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020 …RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.126/2016 (ANNEXURE-A) ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION DATED 19.09.2016 (ANNEXURE-A1) REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 78 AND 79 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC COURT-1) BENGALURU.

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 18 in Crime No.126/2016 of Seshadripuram police station which is now pending in C.C.No.812/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru.

¶44

W.P.No.195/2018

¶45

¶46

Respondent No.2 submitted requisition dated

¶47

19.09.2016 to the trial Court that there is credible information of some persons indulging in gambling in SP Cultural Association Club and therefore, he be permitted to conduct raid and take up investigation.

¶48

Learned Magistrate on requisition itself

¶49

endorsed as follows:

¶50

“Perused requisition. Permitted to carry investigation on registration of first information report as per law.

¶51

Sd/-. 19.09.”

¶52

On such permission, respondent No.1 allegedly

¶53

conducted raid at SP Cultural Club Association on

¶54

19.09.2016 between 3.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. It was alleged that during raid, the petitioners were found indulging in gambling. It was further alleged that cash of Rs.53,440/-, 4 banners and some dices etc were seized.

¶55

After such search and seizure, respondent No.1 police registered the first information report in Crime No.126/2016 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶56

W.P.No.195/2018

¶57

¶58

On investigation, respondent No.1 filed charge sheet as per Annexure-B against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. On receipt of such charge sheet, the learned Magistrate vide order Annexure-C dated 09.01.2017 took cognizance of the offences, summoned the petitioners to face trial.

¶59

The petitioners seek quashing of Annexures-A to C on the ground that the offences alleged against them are non-cognizable one and in such cases no investigation can be conducted without prior order of the learned Magistrate on due application of mind. It is further contended that the order of the learned Magistrate granting permission to investigate and taking cognizance are totally without application of mind. In support of such contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the following judgments:

¶60

(i) Moin Basha Kurnooli vs. State of Karnataka¹ (ii) Shiva Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka²

¶61

There is no dispute that the offences under

¶62

Sections 78 and 79 of the Act are non-cognizable offences.

¶63

1 2015 Crl.L.J.982

¶64

2 Crl.P.No.58/2020 DD 08.04.2021

¶65

W.P.No.195/2018

¶66

¶67

In such cases, Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. requires the Police Officer to take permission of the Court before registering the first information report and commencing the investigation. Though in this case, respondent No.1 submitted requisition seeking permission, the learned Magistrate on the said requisition itself passed the order granting permission to investigate and register the first information report.

¶68

In para 6 of the judgment in Shiva Prasad’s case referred to supra it was held that the order of the learned Magistrate granting permission to register the case and investigate the matter should show judicious application of mind. It was further held that while giving permission learned Magistrate has to pass separate orders showing application of mind and his satisfaction for permitting the Investigating Officer to investigate. It was further held that the order passed on the requisition of the police officer itself was not sustainable and do not show application of mind.

¶69

In similar circumstance, in Moin Basha

¶70

Kurnooli’s case referred to supra, this Court in para 63 of

¶71

W.P.No.195/2018

¶72

¶73

the judgment laid down certain guidelines to the police and Magistrate regarding granting permission and taking cognizance. It was held that Magistrate has to meticulously look into the entire police papers to find out whether the offence is with reference to cognizable case or non cognizable case and whether cognizance can be taken or not. Considering all the legal requirements, it was held that there should be judicious application of mind pertaining to non cognizable offences in a meticulous manner.

¶74

This case is fully covered by the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court. The impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶75

The impugned first information report and the complaint as per Annexures-A and A1, the charge sheet as per Annexure-B and the order taking cognizance as per Annexure-C are hereby quashed.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

KSR

Sri Suresh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri E Mahesha Vs Sri M C Virupaksha

Mr. B T Range Gowda Vs Smt. Nalina

Sri. K P Harish Vs Smt. P Vedavathi @ Chaitra

Mrs Mohini Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

Vittaldas Kamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajashekharananda Swamiji Vs the State of Karnataka