Allowed

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

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2022CRL.P/102818/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against Accused No. 3 in CC No.401/2022. The Court held that the investigation into the non-cognizable offence under the Karnataka Police Act was illegal as the investigating officer failed to secure necessary permission from the Magistrate under Section 155 Cr.P.C, a precedent set in Vaggeppa's case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No.401/2022 against the petitioner/Accused No.3 were quashed.

Auto Shankar S/O. Laxmappa Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102818 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. 102818 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AUTO SHANKAR S/O. LAXMAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SANTEBAILU, MHEBOOB NAGAR, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN CODE-583227.

¶9

…ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOJ BIKKANNAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA ANNAPURNA DANDAGAL CHINNAPPADANDAGAL Location:HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶13

…COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL, IN CC NO.401/2022 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE AMENDMENT ACT 2021, IN CRIME NO.43/2022 REGISTERED BY THE GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2021 BY ALLOWING THE

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 102818 of 2022

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

Petitioner, who is accused No.3 before the trial Court, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gangavathi, Koppal in C.C No.401/2022 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

¶24

CRL.P No. 102818 of 2022

¶25

Heard the learned counsel representing the

¶26

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

¶27

As evident from the records, Crime No.43/2022 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 D.S.P. Rural Police Station, alleging that on 03.02.2022 at 6.45 p.m., near Ruchi Khanavali of Basapattan village, at a public place, the petitioner was 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.43/2022 and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 102818 of 2022

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the offence punishable

¶35

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

¶36

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 102818 of 2022

¶39

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:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

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

¶42

The proceedings in C.C. No.401/2022 on

¶43

the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati, Koppal for the offence punishable under Section

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 102818 of 2022

¶46