Allowed

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

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2022CRL.P/102046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and order dated 07.09.2017 in a case for Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. The court held that since the offence was non-cognizable, mandatory investigation permission under Section 155 CrPC was not obtained, vitiating the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.770/2017 against petitioner-accused No.2 quashed.

Raghavendra Alias Raghu Alias Oc Raghu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102046 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. 102046 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU @ OC 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) AND:

¶11

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

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2017 AND CHARGE SHEET PASSED IN C.C.NO.770/2017 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA DIST. BELLARY (CRIME NO.05/2017) REGISTERED TEKKALAKOTA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 78 (3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 102046 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner, who is accused No.3 before the trial Court, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C Court, Siruguppa Dist, Ballari, in C.C No.770/2017, 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.

¶20

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

¶21

As evident from the records, Crime No.05/2017 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 13.01.2017

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 102046 of 2022

¶24

at about 5:40 P.M. infront of Vivekannanda School Tekkalakota Town, Siruguppa, Ballari, petitioner-accused No. 2 was calling the public to play “Matka” which is a game of chance.

¶25

Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.05/2017, and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner.

¶26

The learned counsel representing the petitioner

¶27

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

¶28

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 102046 of 2022

¶31

absence of following the mandatory procedure provided under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C, the proceedings are liable to the quashed.

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶33

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

7. It is not in dispute that the offence punishable

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 102046 of 2022

¶39

jurisdictional Magistrate in granting permission to the 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:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition filed under Section 482 of

¶42

Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed .

¶43

The proceedings in C.C.No.770/2017, on

¶44

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 petitioneraccused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra Alias Raghu Alias Oc 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

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

Raghu S/O Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka