Allowed

Ramesh S/O Late Anjaneyalu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023WP/105822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 to quash CC No. 757/2015. Relying on a prior judgment in Yallappa, the Court held that under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957, police cannot register an FIR for the offences alleged; only a written complaint by the authorized officer allows the magistrate to take cognizance.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 757/2015 registered for offences under IPC and MMDR Act stands quashed.

Ramesh S/O Late Anjaneyalu Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12125 WP No. 105822 of 2023 C/W WP No. 105908 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105822 OF 2023 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 105908 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

IN W.P. NO. 105822 OF 2023:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMESH G. S/O LATE ANJANEYALU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, SP CIRCLE, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.11 11:30:43 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-580011.

¶16

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 757/2015 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE (CRIME NO.

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12125 WP No. 105822 of 2023 C/W WP No. 105908 of 2023

¶19

¶20

125/2014 OF HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379, 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT, 1957, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND D (IN SO FAR THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

IN W.P. NO. 105908 OF 2023:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

GARIKIPATI INDRANEELA S/O MASTAN RAO G., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. UYYURU VILLAGE, PRESENTLY AKULA DURGAMMA TEMPLE, 21^ST WARD, BALLARI-587101.

¶24

… PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION, DISTRICT VIJAYANAGARA-580011.

¶28

… RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO 757/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE (CRIME NO.125/2014 OF HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION), DATED 12/03/2015 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379, 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMDR ACT, 1957, VIDE ANNEXURE-C (IN SO FAR THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.13 IS CONCERNED) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12125 WP No. 105822 of 2023 C/W WP No. 105908 of 2023

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.757/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 149 of the IPC and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Yallappa S/o Ramappa Metri & another Vs. the State of Karnataka in W.P. No.101571/2022, disposed off on 19.04.2022, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioners therein. This Court has held as follows:

¶37

“Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent.

¶38

2. The FIR is registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 alleging that the petitioners/accused were transporting the sand illegally without valid permit. Taking exception to the registration of the FIR, this petition is filed.

¶39

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that Section 22 of the Act empowers the learned Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence punishable under the said Act only on a complaint in writing by the authorized officer and as such the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is one without authority of law.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12125 WP No. 105822 of 2023 C/W WP No. 105908 of 2023

¶42

4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners having transported the sand illegal without permit have committed the aforesaid offence and as such the police have rightly registered the FIR against the petitioners.

¶43

5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

6. Section 22 of the Act specifies that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance for the offence punishable under the Act only on a complaint in writing by the authorized officer. Hence it is implied that the police have no authority to register the FIR and it is only on the complaint in writing by the authorized officer, the learned Magistrate can take cognizance and not on a report to be submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Hence registration of the FIR by the police is hit by the Section 22 of the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) This petition is allowed.

¶47

ii) The impugned first information report in Crime No.105/2021 registered by the Hospet Rural Police Station is hereby quashed.

¶48

iii) The petitioners are at liberty to move the appropriate authority or the learned Magistrate seeking for release of vehicle which is alleged to have been seized by the police in the aforesaid crime. Respondent is at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶49

iv) In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.”

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12125 WP No. 105822 of 2023 C/W WP No. 105908 of 2023

¶52

Learned AGA would not dispute the position of law as

¶53

is observed in the aforesaid case referred supra.

¶54

Therefore, for the reasons rendered therein, the

¶55

subject petition also deserves to be succeed.

¶56

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The petitions are allowed.

¶59

(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.757/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 149 of the IPC and Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 stands quashed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Vnp*/ct:bck List-1 Sl. No.115

Ramesh S/O Late Anjaneyalu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Late Anjaneyalu 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

Shri Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs the State of Karnataka by

Khaja Ammenuddin S/O Ismailsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shamshuddinimamhussain Gorikhan Vs Smt. Bakula Krishnaji Dubale

H Manjunatha S/O H Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Gangappa Shankarappa Anathapur Vs Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal

Aslam Shaik Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka