Allowed

Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022CRL.P/1927/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed proceedings against 26 petitioners. The court held that an FIR registered for non-cognizable offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act without prior magistrate permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was illegal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.7412/2020 quashed qua petitioners; I.A.No.1/2022 disposed.

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMESH S/O SEETHARAMU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RA/T NO.2ND CROSS VALMIKI NAGAR MYSORE ROAD, CHAMARAJPETE BANGALORE 560 018

¶10

MARUTHI

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

S/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RA/T NO.33, L7TH CROSS CHOLURUPALYA MAGADI ROAD, RAMANGARA DIST 562120

¶13

MUNNA S/O MOHAMMED ELIYAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEAWRS RA/T NO. 61 ARUNDATI SLUM GANGONDAHALLI BANGALORE 562162

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶16

LAKSHMANA S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 252 6TH CROSS 7TH MAIN J.P NAGAR 1ST PHASE BANGALORE 560 078

¶17

JIYAULLA S/O MOHAMMED ESHMAIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RA/T NO. 133 AHAMMED NAGARA MASJID CROSS PADANAKOTE BANGALORE NORTH 560001

¶18

DEEPAK S/O CHANDRABAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 04,

¶19

7TH CROSS OLD BANK COLONY, CHUNCHAGHATTA MAIN KONANAKUNTE POST BANGALORE 560 062

¶20

ISAQ PASHA S/O MOHAMMED ABDUL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RA/T NO.44, MODALAPPA STREET MAVAHALLI NEAR LALBAG BANGALORE 563162

¶21

DILIP S/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶24

R/AT NO. 11/2 5TH CROSS CHOLURUPALYA MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE 560 023

¶25

CHANDRA S/O SWAMY KANNAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEAWRS RA/T NO. 137, 5TH CROSS SAVALTTHI PALYA GOODS SHED ROAD BANGALORE 560 053

¶26

R. RAJAN

¶27

S/O K P RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 80/A, VEERAPILAI STREET BHARATHI NAGAR BANGALORE 560 042

¶28

NAGESH K B S/O B BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.17, KANAKANAGARA YELACHANAHALLI BANGALORE 560 078

¶29

RIYAZ PASHA S/OMAKBUL HUSAIN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 47, 17TH CROSS, LAKSANDRA AJADHNAGARA CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE 560 030

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶32

DINESH KUMAR

¶33

S/O VASUDEV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 1651 1ST STAGE 1ST PHASE CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 040

¶34

PUTTASWAMY S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 53/1 12TH CROSS MUNIYAPPA GARDEN SARAKKI J.P NAGAR BANGALORE 560 078

¶35

VASANTH KUMAR S/O T SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 48 YEAWRS R/AT NO. 3637, 2ND MAIN ROAD GIRINAGAR 4TH PHASE B.S.K. 2ND STAGE BANGLAORE 560 085

¶36

RAJASHEKAR

¶37

S/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 3852 2ND MAIN GAYITHRINAGAR BANGALORE 560 021

¶38

DEVRAJU S/O ANAND

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶41

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.17, YELLAPPA REDDY BUILDING 5TH CROSS YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE 560 022

¶42

NARASIMHA S/O KORAGA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 21/C, 2ND CROSS K.G. NAGAR, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE 560 019

¶43

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O GOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEAWRS RA/T NO. 604 GANGODANAHALLI LAKSHMIPURA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560001

¶44

GANGADHARA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RA/T NO.41, 2ND CROSS NEAR MAHILA VIDYALAYA ANJANEYA BLOCK BANGALORE 560 020

¶45

SHANKARA S/O PUTTAMADU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 185/17,D.C. STREET CHAMARAJPETE BANGALORE 560 018

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶48

YATHIN S/O SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 12 3RD CROSS

¶49

1ST MAIN BASVESHWARA LAYOUT NAGASHETTIHALLI BANGALORE 571448

¶50

KRISHNA S/O SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 291

¶51

4TH CROSS

¶52

4TH MAIN VIVEKNAGAR EXTENSION LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 047

¶53

PRAMOD M.S. S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO. 871, 7TH CROSS NARMADA RIVER ROAD, BRUNDAVANANAGAR, HANUMANTHNAGAR BANGALORE 560 050

¶54

PAPEGOWDA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 72,

¶55

1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS KEMPEGOWDANAGAR GOLLAHARATTI

¶56

¶57

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶58

BANGALORE 560091

¶59

SHIVKUMAR

¶60

S/O LAXMAN

¶61

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶62

R/AT STRIKER ASSOCIATION,

¶63

NO.159/21, 2ND MAIN SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 020

¶64

…PETITIONERS

¶65

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶66

AND:

¶67

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICE SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001

¶68

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE 560020

¶69

…RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶71

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE

¶72

¶73

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶74

COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.130/2019 DATED 24.12.2019 ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION AND SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE M.M.T.C. - , MAYO HALL, BENGALURU WHEREIN THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 26 ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT. (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND ETC.

¶75

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

¶76

ORDER

¶77

Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶78

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

¶79

question the proceedings in C.C.No.7412/2020, pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 290 of the IPC and under

¶80

¶81

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶82

Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which are non-cognizable offences.

¶83

In the light of the fact that the said offences were non-cognizable, FIR could not have been registered against the petitioners on such offences, without at the outset seeking permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶84

It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, no such permission is sought from the Magistrate to register the FIR or conduct investigation. The issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101632/2021 and connected cases , disposed of on 21.9.2021 , wherein this Court has held as follows:

¶85

“4. The main ground of attack by the petitioner in respective petitions is that the offence alleged is under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. 1963 and it is a non cognizable offence. Before proceeding to investigate the offence the Police ought to have taken prior permission from the concerned court as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended

¶86

10 -

¶87

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶88

that even if the permission from the Magistrate was obtained, it is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. The State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 . Learned HCGP has contended that in some of the cases, the Police have obtained permission of the concerned court and then investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. He further contended that the Police have taken the care to comply mandatory requirements and then only they have proceeded with the matter and ultimately filed the charge sheet.

¶89

5. Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli V/s. The State of Karnataka, By Cowl Bazaar Police Station , reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3355 elaborately considered the provisions of Section 155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and held that offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non cognizable offence. Investigation of cases under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act and all further proceedings before the court are vitiated by incurable illegalities or defects for want of permission to investigate the case by the competent Magistrate under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶90

6. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the Police have taken prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate a non cognizable offence as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶91

7. In crime No.151/2020 of Ranebennur Rural Police station, the FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 78(3) of K.P. Act

¶92

11 -

¶93

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶94

and Section 420 of IPC and charge sheet has been filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. Section 420 of IPC is invoked only to get over requirement of prior permission of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not contain any allegation to attract ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. There is nothing in the FIR to indicate that any member of the public had complained of cheating by the petitioner or other accused persons named in the FIR. In the said crime No.151/2020 the Police have not obtained permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is an abuse of process of court.

¶95

8. The coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (supra) after elaborately considering Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued guidelines to be followed by judicial Magistrate. The said guidelines are as under:

¶96

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted’ on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶97

ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him

¶98

12 -

¶99

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶100

with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.

¶101

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶102

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶103

v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.

¶104

9. In Crime No.93/2020 of Guttal Police Station the Police gave requisition seeking

¶105

13 -

¶106

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶107

permission to investigate a non cognizable offence and the learned Magistrate on the same day has issued intimation as granted permission to investigate a non cognizable offence.

¶108

10. In Crime No.25/2020 of Halavagilu police station, Harapanahalli District, Ballari, the Police gave requisition and on the same requisition, the learned Magistrate has made endorsement as “permitted to register the case”.

¶109

11. On looking to the said aspects, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not followed the guidelines laid down in Vaggeppa case (supra). By looking to the said endorsement, there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate. Under the circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the following cases cannot sustain in law and accordingly, they are quashed.”

¶110

In the light of the order passed by the

¶111

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶112

14 -

¶113

CRL.P No. 1927 of 2022

¶114

ORDER

¶115

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶116

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.7412/2020, pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru, stand quashed qua the petitioners.

¶117

I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed, as a consequence.

¶118

Sd/JUDGE

¶119

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. 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

Chaluvaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Joe Abraham Mathews Vs State by

P Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Naveen v Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Manjunatha. M. K. Vs State of Karnataka