Allowed

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2022CRL.P/102043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, held to be non-cognizable, due to the investigating officer failing to obtain mandatory permission from the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C as per Vaggeppa's case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.560/2016 against the petitioner-accused No.2 are quashed.

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102043 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102043 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JADAR RAGHU S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TEKKALAKOTA TOWN, DISTRICT: BALLARI-583101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH TEKKALAKOTE POLICE STATION DISTRICT. BALLARI-580011.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2016 PASSED IN CC NO.560/2016 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA DISTRICT BALLARI, (CRIME NO.33/2016) REGISTERED TEKKALKOTE P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 102043 of 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner, who is accused No.2 before the trial Court, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.07.2016, passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C Court, Siruguppa Dist, Ballari, in C.C No.560/2016, taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ( for short “K.P. Act”), contending that the alleged offence is a non-cognizable and the investigating officer has not obtained the permission of the jurisdictional magistrate as mandated under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the records.

¶22

As evident from the records, Crime No.33/2016 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act, based on the complaint filed by PSI, alleging that on 20.04.2016

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 102043 of 2022

¶25

at about 6:00 P.M. near Manigara Masidi Tekkalkote, siruguppa village, Ballari, petitioner-accused No. 2 was indulge in playing “Matka” which is a game of chance.

¶26

Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.33/2016, and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner.

¶27

The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that no permission is taken from the learned Magistrate to proceed with the investigation and as such the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C and also the decision of this Court in the matter of Vaggeppa

¶28

Gurulingappa Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. State of Karnataka¹ (Vaggeppa’s case) and submits that in the absence of following the mandatory procedure provided

¶29

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 102043 of 2022

¶32

under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C, the proceedings are liable to the quashed.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader conceded that there is no material to show that the investigation officer has requested the jurisdictional Magistrate to grant permission and that accordingly the Magistrate has given the permission to proceed with the investigation.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non-cognizable offence and therefore, the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 155 of Cr.P.C and Rule 1 of Chapter 5 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, are required to be followed before the investigation officer could proceed with the investigation. In Vaggeppa’s case referred to supra , this Court while referring to the said provisions has given guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by the investigating officer as well as the jurisdictional Magistrate in granting permission to the

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 102043 of 2022

¶37

investigation officer to conduct investigation in a non cognizable offence. Admittedly, this procedure is not followed and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and accordingly the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition filed under Section 482 of

¶40

Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed .

¶41

The proceedings in C.C.No.560/2016, on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Court, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitioner-

¶42

accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa 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. Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumarayya S/O Channabasayya Vastradmath, Vs Kittur Rani Chennamma Urban

Veeresha Alias Veeresh S/O Mallikarjunagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Alias Raghu Alias Oc Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu S/O Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka