Allowed

Kallappa S/O Laxman Lakkar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023CRL.P/100654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the Magistrate erred by merely endorsing 'Permitted' on the police requisition without applying a judicious mind or issuing a reasoned order, thereby violating mandatory Section 155 Cr.P.C. requirements.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.1219/2018 pending on the file of Prl. J.M.F.C, Gokak are quashed as against the petitioners.

Kallappa S/O Laxman Lakkar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100654 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KALLAPPA S/O LAXMAN LAKKAR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC: CHAIRMAN KOUJALAGI BLOCK CONGRESS COMMITTEE, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.

¶9

BHARAMAPPA S/O. LAXMAN UPPAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, CHAIRMAN ARBHAVI BLOCK CONGRESS COMMITTEE, TUKKANATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.

¶10

NAZER S/O. SULTHANSAB SHAIKH, AGE. 59 YEARS, CHAIRMAN GOKAK CITY BLACK CONGRESS I COMMITTEE, GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.23 16:47:44 +0530

¶14

(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶17

SHANTHARAM S/O KALLAPPA ENTITTINEVER, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. FLYING SQUAD, GOKAK ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. J.M.F.C. AT GOKAK IN P.S. CRIME NO.130/2018 CC NO.1219/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. 1, 2 AND 3 IN (P.S. CRIME NO.130/2018) CC NO.1219/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. J.M.F.C. AT GOKAK P/U/SEC.171 (E) OF IPC AND 123(A) (1) R.P. ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 04.06.2018 passed in C.C.No.1219/2018 by learned Prl. J.M.F.C, Gokak (Crime No.130/2018 of Gokak Town Police Station) and entire proceedings in C.C.No.1219/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 171E of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and Section 123 (1) (A) of The Representation of People Act (hereinafter referred as ‘R.P.Act’ for brevity).

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2018, respondent No.2-member of Flying Squad, Gokak Vidhanasabha-09 appeared before the Town Police Station, Gokak and filed information stating that in the meeting of Congress Party workers held in Gokak town, there was supply of Tiffin to the Congress Party workers without obtaining any prior permission by the petitioners and accused No.4 and they have violated the rules of Code of Conduct. Based on the information, N.C.No.14/2018 for the offence under Section 171E of IPC and 123(1) (A) of R.P.Act, was registered. The SHO of Gokak Town Police Station sent a requisition to the Prl. J.M.F.C, Gokak seeking permission to register the case and for conducting investigation. After getting permission from the learned Magistrate, a case came to be registered in Gokak Town Police Station Crime No.130/2018 for the offence under Section 123(1) and 123(A) of R.P.Act against these petitioners and another. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against these petitioners and another for the offence punishable under

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶31

Section 171E of IPC and Section 123(1) (A) of R.P.Act. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against these petitioners for the offence under Section 171E of IPC and Section 123 (1) (A) of R.P.Act and a case came to be registered in C.C.No.1219/2018. Learned Magistrate by his order took cognizance of the offences on 21.06.2018. The petitioners have sought quashing of the said proceedings initiated against them.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶33

contend that the permission accorded by the learned Magistrate to register the case and conduct investigation is not in accordance with Section 155 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate has only endorsed on the requisition as ‘Permitted’. Learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and has not passed order supported by reasons. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶34

Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs The

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶36

State of Karnataka, through P S I, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi¹ . With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶37

Learned HCGP would contend that after getting permission from the learned Magistrate, the police registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against these petitioners. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶38

The offences alleged against these petitioners under Section 171E of IPC and Section 123 (1) (A) of R.P.Act are non-cognizable offences. As the offences alleged against these petitioners are non-cognizable, the SHO of Gokak Town Police Station filed requisition seeking permission for registering the case and to conduct investigation. On the said requisition, learned Magistrate has made endorsement as ‘Permitted’. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa ( supra )

¶39

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶42

considering a similar case has laid down guidelines, which

¶43

reads as under;

¶44

“20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶50

the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.”

¶53

Whenever, the police seek permission to register a case and to conduct investigation in respect of

¶54

non-cognizable offence, the learned Magistrate has to examine the contents of requisition with his judicious mind and record findings as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated.

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13374 CRL.P No. 100654 of 2023

¶56

In the present case on hand, learned Magistrate

¶57

has simply made an endorsement on the requisition as ‘Permitted’. The same itself goes to show that there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate before permitting the police to investigate non-cognizable offence. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against these petitioners in C.C.No.1219/2018 pending on the file of Prl.J.M.F.C, Gokak are liable to be quashed insofar as these petitioners are concerned. In the result, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶60

The proceedings in C.C.No.1219/2018 pending on

¶61

the file of Prl. J.M.F.C, Gokak are quashed as against these petitioners are concerned.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

AM CT:BCK/-. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Kallappa S/O Laxman Lakkar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallappa S/O Laxman Lakkar 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

Nagaraj Shetty S/O Late B Ramachandra Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Ayub S/O Late S Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Gnanadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman Vs Town Municipal Council

Smt. Julekhabi W/O Miyajan Inamdar W/O Miyajan Inamadar Vs State of Karnataka

Mubasher Khan S/O Aamnulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka