Allowed

Palaksha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022CRL.P/5790/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition praying to quash a charge sheet. It held that FIRs for non-cognizable offences under the Karnataka Police Act were registered without prior Magistrate permission required by Cr.P.C. Section 155(2), violating co-ordinate bench precedents. Proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.248/2022 filed against the petitioners stand quashed. I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed as a consequence.

Palaksha Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5790 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PALAKSHA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

R/O VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 2. DHARMA G.M S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/O GOLLARAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNRAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 3. MANJEGOWDA V.N S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O VALAGERASOMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE

¶20

CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.360/2021 BY THE CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.79, 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.248/2022 ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.248/2022, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Channarayapatna, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which are non-cognizable offences.

¶30

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.

¶31

It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, no

¶32

such permission is sought from the Magistrate to register the FIR or conduct investigation. The issue stands covered

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶35

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:

¶36

“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 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.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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 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.

¶43

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:

¶44

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶47

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.

¶48

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 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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

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”.

¶56

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.”

¶57

In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 5790 of 2022

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶62

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.248/2022, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Channarayapatna, Hassan, stand quashed qua the petitioners.

¶63

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

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

SJK

Palaksha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaksha 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

Kum. Nayana Kumar H P Vs the Secretary, Social Welfare Department

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M Latha Vs the State of Karnataka

R Prashantha Vs State of Karnataka

Subramanya S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwath Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka