Allowed

Mallikarjun S/O Siddappa Mali v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022CRL.P/102402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed proceedings under Sections 171(H) IPC and Section 133 R.P. Act for filing a charge sheet without complying with mandatory Section 155 Cr.P.C. requirements, as the Investigating Officer failed to obtain prior permission from the Magistrate for this non-cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.1123/2018 pending against Accused Nos. 3, 7 and 8 are quashed.

Mallikarjun S/O Siddappa Mali Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102402 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MALLIKARJUN S/O. SIDDAPPA MALI AGE. 34 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTUREIST R/O. KUMBARHALLI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301

¶10

SANGAPPA S/O PARAPPA HIREKURABUR AGE. 39 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTUREIST R/O. KUMBARHALLI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT-587301

¶11

SIDDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA MALI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTUREIST R/O. KUMBARHALLI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301

¶12

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶13

Digitally signed byANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,DHARWAD.

¶14

(BY SRI. S L MATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI TOWN POLICE STATION JAMKHANDI R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶20

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.1123/2018 (F.R.(C.C.) NO.1126/2018) SUBMITTED BY THE PSI, JAMKHANDI TOWN POLICE STATION, (IN JAMKHANDI TOWN PS CRIME NO.90/2018), AND TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 26.10.2018 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS U/S 171(H) OF IPC AND U/S 133 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.3, 7 AND 8 AS PER THE CHARGE SHEET, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.3, 7 and 8 before the Trial Court, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1123/2018 for the offences punishable under sections 171(H) of IPC and Section 133 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioners that, after investigation a charge sheet has been filed on the

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶30

allegations that on 10.05.2018 at about 12.00 hours, the petitioners and others fixed the flag of Bharatiya Janata Party to their vehicles without prior permission from Election Commission and based on the information furnished by one Mahantesh Yadappanavar, case was registered. The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi has taken cognizance of the offences and ordered for registering the case and issued summons to the petitioners. They have secured bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences alleged are noncognizable. However, before commencing investigation, the investigating officer has not secure permission of the Trial Court as required under section 155 of Cr.P.C. and as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

¶31

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 the Magistrate has given the permission to proceed with the investigation.

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶34

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the offence punishable

¶36

under section 171(H) of IPC and section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 are non-cognizable offences. Therefore, mandatory provisions as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 of Chapter V of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice are required to be followed before the Investigating Officer could proceed with the investigation. The Investigating Officer has no power to investigate the matter without the permission of the Court. From the material placed on record, it is evident that except submitting the FIR, the Investigating Officer has not sought permission of the Court to investigate the matter. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the matter of Vaggeppa Gurulingappa Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. State of Karnataka¹ (Vaggeppa’s case), wherein whiel referring to the above said provisions, this Court has

¶37

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶40

issued guidelines to the Investigating Officer as well as Magistrates as to the procedure to be followed while seeking and granting permission to investigate noncognizable offences, which reads as follows:

¶41

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶42

ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.

¶43

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶44

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶47

not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶48

v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.

¶49

A joint reading of Section 155 Cr.P.C., Rule 1 of Chapter V of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice and the guidelines issued in the above decision, it is evident that immediately after receipt of information regarding occurrence of a non-cognizable offence, the investigating officer is required to give requisition in writing to the jurisdictional Magistrate and in turn, the same is required to be put up along with the order sheet. After due application of mind, the Magistrate is required to pass an order granting or rejecting the permission to investigate. Ultimately, if charge sheet is filed, this order sheet is

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 102402 of 2022

¶52

required to be continued. Unless this procedure is followed, the entire proceedings would vitiate. In the absence of following the mandatory procedure, no purpose would serve in continuing the proceedings. For the above reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The petition is allowed.

¶55

The proceedings in C.C.No.1123/2018 (F.R.No.1126/2018) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, insofar as petitioners/accused No.3, 7 and 8 are concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶56

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

YAN

Mallikarjun S/O Siddappa Mali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjun S/O Siddappa Mali 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 Nallasamy P S/O Palaniappan Vs the State of Karnataka

Veeresh S/O Veerayya Hiremath Vs Smt.Vedavati @ Shruti W/O Veeresh Hiremath

Anand Nagappa Pattan Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Naseem Khan S/O Kashim Khan Vs Smt.B.B.Khuteja Nasim Khan

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Noorjahan W/O Yaseen Dargah Vs the State of Karnataka