Allowed

Maruthi Alias Maruthi S/O Mallikarjuna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2022CRL.P/102693/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against petitioner-accused 1 and 2 in a non-cognizable offence. The proceedings were quashed as they were vitiated due to the investigating officer failing to obtain mandatory magistrate permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C No.60/2017 against petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 for offence under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 were quashed.

Maruthi Alias Maruthi S/O Mallikarjuna Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102693 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102693 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARUTHI @ MARUTHI S/O: MALLIKARJUNA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O: KARURU VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583101.

¶9

VEERESHA @ VERESH S/O: DODDA MALLIKARJUNA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O: KARURU VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583101.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD – 580001. (THROUGH SIRIGERI P.S )

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.60/2017 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI, (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.3/2017 REGISTERED SIRIGERI P.S.) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 102693 of 2022

¶19

ACT 1963, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IS CONCERNED.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa in C.C No.60/2017, 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.

¶23

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

¶24

As evident from the records, Crime No.3/2017 came

¶25

to be registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act, based on the

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 102693 of 2022

¶28

complaint filed by SHO, Siruguppa PS alleging that on 03.01.2017 at 3.30 p.m., near Pothappa temple of H.Hosalli village, the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 were indulged in collecting money from public for “Matka” which is a game of chance.

¶29

Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.3/2017, and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners.

¶30

The learned counsel representing the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 absence of

¶31

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 102693 of 2022

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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 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:

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 102693 of 2022

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed .

¶41

The proceedings in 60/2017, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

yan

Maruthi Alias Maruthi S/O Mallikarjuna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi Alias Maruthi S/O Mallikarjuna 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 Suresh S/O Mahadevappa Karaguppi Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep S/O Mahaveer Halaki Vs State of Karnataka

Adiveppa S/O Shankar Kadgoudar Vs Abdulrazak S/O. Imamsaheb Yargatti

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