Dismissed

Chandrappa H S/O Nagamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023CRL.P/103108/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings for playing 'mataka' under the Karnataka Police Act. The court noted the Station House Officer had sought and obtained magistrate permission via requisition, unlike Section 155(1) requirements. Citing precedent allowing SHO to seek permission, the court held the petitioner's contentions had no merit and dismissed the p

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the complaint, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings is dismissed.

Chandrappa H S/O Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14348 CRL.P No. 103108 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103108 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANDRAPPA H. S/O NAGAMMA, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. SULADHALLI, TQ. KUDILIGI, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR. (BY SRI. M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH P.S.I. HOSHALLI P.S. CIRCLE. KOTTUR, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶12

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.12.11 11:16:55 +0530

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET FILED IN HOSHALLI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.114/2023 OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 ON THE FILE OF PENDING IN CC NO.572/2023 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COUT AT KUDLIGI AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED HEREIN BE KINDLY QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14348 CRL.P No. 103108 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed seeking to quash of charge sheet in Crime No.114/2023 of Hosahalli Police Station and proceedings in C.C.No.83/2023 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi registered for offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the K.P Act’, for brevity).

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶20

The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 15.06.2023, the Police Sub-Inspector, Hosahalli Police Station has received information that at Sooladhalli village

¶21

in the public place in front of the Anjeneya temple in the open public place ‘mataka’ game was being played. There upon the Police Sub-Inspector along with police constables summoned two of the panchas and proceeded to the spot and after observation found ‘mataka’ being played. Then

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14348 CRL.P No. 103108 of 2023

¶23

caught the person and seized the cash and chit and prepared panchnama and gave repot. On the basis of the said report NC came to be registered. The Station House Officer by his requisition dated 15.06.2023 sought permission to the learned Magistrate to register FIR and to conduct investigation. After learned Magistrate accorded the permission by his order dated 16.06.2023 and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.114/2023 of Hosahalli Police Station against this petitioner for offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P. Act and case came to be registered in C.C.No.83/2023 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi. The petitioner has sought for quashing of charge sheet and criminal case registered against him.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶25

contend that after raid and complete investigation, the permission of learned magistrate has been sought. He further submits that the Station House Officer of the Police Station has to refer the first informant to magistrate as

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14348 CRL.P No. 103108 of 2023

¶27

required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. In the absence of the same, the proceedings against this petitioner requires to be quashed. With this, he prays to allow the petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that on being found this petitioner playing ‘mataka’ and on seizer of cash, chit and ball pen etc., the Police Sub-Inspector has filed report and the Station House Officer has rightly as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C sought permission of the learned Magistrate to register FIR and to conduct investigation in the matter. Only after grant of permission by the learned Magistrate by order dated 16.06.2023, FIR came to be registered and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed. There is no violation of sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14348 CRL.P No. 103108 of 2023

¶31

respondent-State, this Court has perused the charge sheet papers and records.

¶32

The Police Sub-Inspector, Hosahalli Police

¶33

Station has received creditable information and conducted raid and found the petitioner playing ‘mataka’ game and seized cash, chit and ball pen etc., under mahazar and filed report. On receipt of the said report the Station House Officer has sought permission of the learned Magistrate by requisition dated 15.06.2023. Learned Magistrate accorded the permission to register FIR and to conduct investigation as per his detailed order dated 16.06.2023. It is only after grant of permission of learned Magistrate, the Station House Officer has registered the FIR and after completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed.

¶34

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Station House Officer has not referred the informant to the Magistrate and the Station House Officer cannot seek the permission of the learned

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14348 CRL.P No. 103108 of 2023

¶36

Magistrate is no more res integra in view of the judicial pronouncement of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of the Vijesh Pillai Vs State of Karnataka¹ where in it is held as under

¶37

“20. On a coalesce of all the judgments what would unmistakably emerge is that, it is open to a Police Officer or any complainant to approach the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., to investigate a non-cognizable offence. There is nothing in the section to indicate that the informant alone should seek permission from the Magistrate to commence investigation. I deem it appropriate to concur such plethora of opinions rendered by various High Courts as what sub-section (1) mandates referring the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) remains silent as to who has to obtain permission. Therefore permission can either be sought by the complainant or by the Station House Officer. Wherefore, it is not necessary for the informant alone to knock at the doors of the learned Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission for registration of FIR, it could be either the informant or the Station House officer. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by other High Courts and the co-ordinate bench of this Court in PRAKASH RAJ² (supra)”.

¶38

9. In view of the above, the Station House Officer

¶39

can seek permission of the learned Magistrate under

¶40

Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. There is no necessary for the

¶41