Allowed

Veeresha Alias Veeresh S/O Mallikarjunagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2022CRL.P/102698/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash proceedings arising from a non-cognizable offence under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, alleging violation of mandatory procedure regarding magistrate permission under Section 155 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C No.1178/2015 against petitioners accused No.1 and 2 for offence under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act 1963 are hereby quashed.

Veeresha Alias Veeresh S/O Mallikarjunagouda… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102698 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. 102698 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

MURALI S/O VERESHAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: FARMER R/O: DASAPUR 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.1178/2015 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI, (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.150/2015 REGISTERED SIRIGERI P.S.) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 102698 of 2022

¶19

PETITION IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE 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 dated 19.12.2015, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, in C.C No.1178/2015, 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.150/2015 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offence

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 102698 of 2022

¶27

punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act, based on the complaint filed by the Police Officer of Siruguppa P.S. alleging that on 05.10.2015 at 8.00 p.m., near Devi Nagar Irranna Temple of Karur village, at a public place, the petitioners were indulged in collecting money from public for “Matka” which is a game of chance.

¶28

Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.150/2016 and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners.

¶29

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

¶30

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 102698 of 2022

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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:

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 102698 of 2022

¶38

ORDER

¶39

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

¶40

The proceedings in C.C.No.1178/2015 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Siruguppa, Ballari, (arising out of Crime No.150/2015 of Sirigeri P.S. for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitionersaccused No.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

Veeresha Alias Veeresh S/O Mallikarjunagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeresha Alias Veeresh S/O Mallikarjunagouda 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

Maruthi Alias Maruthi S/O Mallikarjuna Vs the State of Karnataka