Allowed

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

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2022CRL.P/102707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings initiated for an offence of collecting money for Matka under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner as a non-cognizable offence requiring judicial permission which was not obtained.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.137/2021 against the petitioner Accused No.2 are hereby quashed.

Auto Shankar Alias Shankar Lingappa… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102707 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 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102707 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AUTO SHANKAR @ SHANKAR LINGAPPA S/O. LACHAMAPPA @ LAXMAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMLOYED, R/O. MAHIBOOB NAGAR, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN CODE: 583227.

¶9

…ACCUSED NO.2/PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶14

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

¶15

…COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND JMFC GANGAVATHI IN CC NO.137/2021 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT IN CRIME NO.05/2021 REGISTERED BY THE GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION FOR AN OFFENCE

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 102707 of 2022

¶19

PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed

¶23

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 01.02.2021 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gangavathi in C.C No.137/2021 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. 102707 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 No.05/2021 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. Town Police Station, alleging that on 06.01.2021 at 4.15 p.m., near Veerapur Tanda, Sevalal Circle of Anegundi Road of Gangavati Town, at a public place, the petitioner was indulged in collecting money from public for “Matka” which is a game of chance.

¶30

Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional

¶31

police have registered case in Crime No.05/2021 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

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 102707 of 2022

¶36

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 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

¶40

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 102707 of 2022

¶43

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:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

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

¶46

The proceedings in C.C. No.137/2021 on

¶47

the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of

¶48

¶49

CRL.P No. 102707 of 2022

¶50

Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitioner-

¶51

accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶52

SD/JUDGE

¶53

PJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Auto Shankar Alias Shankar Lingappa S/O Lachamappa Alias Laxmappa 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 Kartik Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kartik Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

H.S. Rahamathulla Khan S/O H.S. Ahamad Khan Vs the State by

Auto Shankar S/O. Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Auto Shankar S/O Lakshmappa Vs the State of Karnataka