Allowed

Auto Shankar S/O Lakshmappa Alias Lachamappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2022CRL.P/102703/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner challenged proceedings in a complaint case regarding money collection for Matka. The Court quashed proceedings because the investigation officer failed to obtain mandatory magistrate permission under Section 155 of Cr.P.C for the non-cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1890/2019 as against petitioner-accused No.2 were quashed.

Auto Shankar S/O Lakshmappa Alias Lachamappa Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102703 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102703 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

AUTO SHANKAR S/O. LAKSHMAPPA @ LACHAMAPPA AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED, R/O. KILLA AREA, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583227.

¶10

…ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANOJ BIKKANNAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. (THROUGH GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION ) PIN CODE:580001.

¶15

…COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND JMFC GANGAVATHI IN CC NO.1890/2019 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT IN CRIME NO.221/2019 REGISTERED BY THE GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 BY

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 102703 of 2022

¶20

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent.

¶24

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 13.12.2019 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gangavathi in C.C No.1890/2019 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.

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 102703 of 2022

¶27

Heard the learned counsel representing the

¶28

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

¶29

As evident from the records, Crime

¶30

No.221/2019 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 P.S.I. Rural Police Station, alleging that on 16.10.2019 at 6.00 p.m., near Valmiki Circle of Mukkumpi village, at a public place, the petitioner was indulged in collecting money from public for “Matka” which is a game of chance.

¶31

Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.221/2019 and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner.

¶32

The learned counsel representing the petitioner

¶33

submits that no permission is taken from the learned Magistrate to proceed with the investigation and as such

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 102703 of 2022

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the offence punishable

¶39

under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non-cognizable offence and therefore, the mandatory procedure as contemplated

¶40

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 102703 of 2022

¶43

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:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

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

¶46

The proceedings in C.C. No.1890/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 102703 of 2022

¶49

Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitioner-

¶50