Allowed

Shri G Karthikeyan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024CRL.P/1005/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet for non-cognizable offences under Sections 171-E and 171-H IPC where police investigation proceeded on a bare Magistrate endorsement 'permitted to investigate' instead of an order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.; following co-ordinate bench precedents, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.685/2019 pursuant to FIR No.54/2018 under Sections 171-E and 171-H IPC quashed qua the petitioners.

Shri G Karthikeyan Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1005 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI G KARTHIKEYAN S/O A GANESAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

SRI VENKATESH PRABHU S/O SRI G KARTHIKEYAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/A NO.2/2190-A SRI SRINIVASA NAGAR, SIVAKASI VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT TAMILNADU-626141

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. K.J.KAMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEVANAHALLI TOWN POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

SRI ADARSH KUMAR S/O CHANNAIHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PDO, KUNDANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/O SHANTHI NAGAR 5TH CROSS, GARE RAVI LAYOUT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶19

DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SOWMYA.R., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT IN FIR NO.54/2018 OF DEVANAHALLI TOWN POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171-E AND 171-H OF THE IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT DEVANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.685/2019.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

1. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking

¶27

for the following prayer:

¶28

"To quash the charge sheet as against the petitioners registered by respondent in FIR No.54 of 2018 of Devanahalli Town Police Station, Devanahalli for an offence punishable under Sections 171-E and 171-H of the IPC on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Devanahalli in C.C.No.685 of 2019 ."

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶30

Heard Sri.K.J.Kamath, learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Sowmya R., learned HCGP for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs. The State of Karnataka , reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 , followed in W.P. No.14076 of 2021 disposed on 08.03.2022 ( Hariraj Shetty vs. State of Karnataka and others ), wherein it has been held as follows:

¶33

" ORDER

¶34

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.31/2021, pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, on the ground of non-compliance of

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶37

the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶38

Heard Shri Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.J.Rohith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 10 and perused the material on record.

¶39

The case of the prosecution is that, on 13.03.2021, respondent No.4 – CCB Police under the instructions of ACP – N. Hanumantharaya and four other Inspectors barged into the recreation club and disconnected the CCTV recorder and conducted raid, arrested persons who were involved in playing game of chance by placing bets. An amount of Rs.5,35,025/- along with other material objects were also seized. The CCB Police registered a complaint in Crime No.31/2021 for the aforesaid offences on 15.03.2021. The matter was referred for investigation. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforequoted offences. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.77.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 are non-cognizable offences. On noncognizable offences, FIR could not have been registered without at the outset express permission at

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶43

the hands of the learned Magistrate and the entire process is violation of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶44

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 - State, however, submitted that the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate permitting the Police is sufficient compliance.

¶45

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶46

The issue that has arisen for consideration need not detain this Court for long as this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630, this Court has held that a mere endorsement made by the Magistrate on the application submitted by the Police Officer under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. as ‘permitted’ is not an ‘order’ in the eye of law and on that ground also, the proceedings initiated against the accused are rendered illegal and are liable to be quashed. Undeniably, the offence alleged is a noncognizable offence. Section 155 of the Cr.P.C, deals with the procedure of investigation and cognizance of non-cognizable cases. This Court in the afore-quoted case holds as follows:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶49

“ 3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is noncognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the Police have no authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the Police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the Police to take up investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

¶50

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non-cognizable one and therefore, as per Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., the informant PSI ought to have been referred to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have passed the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up investigation of the case and these are the mandatory requirements of the provisions under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. which are not followed in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.

¶51

8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a noncognizable offence. When the report is received by

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶54

the SHO of Police Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with the procedure for investigation and for taking cognizance of non- cognizable offence reads as follows:—

¶55

“155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.

¶56

(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

¶57

(2) No police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

¶58

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.

¶59

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.”

¶60

9. Therefore, when the SHO of the Police Station receives a report regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate as required

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶63

under Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., stated supra. Unless, the Police Officer is permitted by an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet.

¶64

10. This Court in the case of Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli v. State of Karnataka [(2017) 1 AIR Kant R 461] , considered the requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., where case relates to a non-cognizable offence, in para 10 of the judgment this Court has observed as follows:

¶65

“10. S. 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of the information received by the Officer in charge of a Police Station relating to commission of non-cognizable offence. As per subsection (I) of S. 155 Cr. P.C. when an Officer in charge of Police Station receives the information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by such Officer in the prescribed form ‘and refer the informant to the Magistrate’. Sub-section (2) of S. 155 Cr. P.C. makes it clear, that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to tty such case or commit case for trial. Sub-section(1) of S. 155 Cr. P.C., which casts a duty on the station house officer who receives information as to the commission of non-cognizable offence to enter or cause to be entered the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate, does not enable the SHO himself to approach the Magistrate and seek orders. The provision makes it clear, that the SHO shall refer the informant to the Magistrate, thereby, making clear that it is for the informant to seek the orders of

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶68

jurisdictional Magistrate for issue of direction to the police for investigation of the case. The Magistrate, on being approached by the informant, if orders investigation, the SHO concerned would get jurisdiction to register the crime, investigate the matter and not otherwise.”

¶69

11. This Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka [ Crl.P. 5934/2009 decided on 20/8/2013] , considered the scope of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., has observed in para 5 as follows:—

¶70

“5. Section 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of an information received by the officer in charge of a police station relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence. According to sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., when an officer in charge of the Police Station receives an information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. According to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without a order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading of sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO, who receives information as to the commission of a noncognizable offence is only to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is for the informant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek a direction to the police for investigation. If the Magistrate on being approached by the informant, directs investigation, the Police Officer concerned would get jurisdiction to investigate the matter.”

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶73

12. This Court in paragraph 6 has further has observed as follows:—

¶74

“In the case on hand, as noticed supra, upon receipt of the report submitted by the 2^nd respondent, the SHO of Virajpet Police Station registered the same as NCR and submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter, based on which, the Magistrate granted permission. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SHO is without the authority of law and the same is not contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. Therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on such requisition is also without any basis, as such, the investigation carried on by the police and the charge sheet filed thereon are without the authority of law. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, it is open to Respondent No. 2, who is the informant before the police to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek necessary orders as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C.”

¶75

13. Therefore, the SHO of the Police Station has no authority of law unless the jurisdictional magistrate permits the Police Officer for investigation of the non-cognizable offence.

¶76

14. This Court in the case of Padubidri Members Lounge v. Director General and Inspector General of Police [W.P. Nos. 42073-75/2018 DD : 3/10/2012] , considered the mandatory provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of CrP.C., where the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:—

¶77

“6. As per the above provisions, when an Officer-in-charge of the police station receives an information with regard to commission of noncognizable offence/s, i) he shall enter or caused to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by the said Officer in a prescribedform

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶80

and ii) refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a noncognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial.

¶81

7. In the instant case, police have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have referred the informant to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., or obtained necessary order as envisaged under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., before embarking upon investigation. Thus, on the face of it, the respondents are seen to have violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C.”

¶82

15. Again this Court, in the case of Veeranagouda v. The State of Karnataka [ Crl.P. No. 102021/2018 decided on 11/1/2019] , considered the requirements of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and has held in para 9 as follows:—

¶83

“The Counsel appearing for the petitioner' also brought to the notice of this Court that when a requisition was given to the Magistrate, only an endorsement is made as permitted to investigate as per section 155 of Cr. P.C. on the very request letter itself and the same is not in accordance with law. The concerned Magistrate did not apply his mind and passed any considered order. On the requisition only an endorsement is made and the same is not the permission in the eye of law. Therefore in reality it is not permission at all and the prosecution has not satisfied the Court that mandatory requirements are complied before proceeding with the investigation in the matter. Legal aspect has not been complied and the same has been over looked by the Court below while ordering for registering the criminal case against the petitioners' herein. Looking to these materials it goes to show that it is the abuse of

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶86

process of Court to continue the proceedings. Not only it is wasting of valuable time and energy of the Court. Even if the trial is proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the matter.”

¶87

16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶88

17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable offence.

¶89

18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non-cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of noncognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is

¶90

13 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶92

submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’.

¶93

19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non-cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:—

¶94

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

¶95

*1. Report under Section 154.—(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.

¶96

2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶99

Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

¶100

20. Therefore, under Rule 1, 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 of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

¶101

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.

¶102

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.

¶103

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.

¶104

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

¶105

15 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶107

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.

¶108

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.

¶109

21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:—

¶110

“Perused materials. Permitted

¶111

Sd/-”

¶112

22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the noncognizable offence much less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate.

¶113

23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby quashed as against the petitioner is concerned.”

¶114

In terms of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., when an Officer in-charge of the police station receives an

¶115

16 -

¶116

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶117

information/complaint with regard to commission of non-cognizable offences, (i) he shall enter or caused to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by the said Officer in a prescribed form and (ii) refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial.

¶118

In the instant case, police have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have referred the informant to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., or obtained necessary order as envisaged under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., before embarking upon investigation. Thus, on the face of it, the respondents are seen to have violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶119

In the light of afore-extracted judgment and above discussion, it has to be held that, the endorsement made by learned Magistrate stating ‘permitted to investigate’ does not satisfy the requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition deserves to succeed.

¶120

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶121

17 -

¶122

NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶123

ORDER

¶124

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶125

(ii) The further proceedings in Crime No.31/2021, pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court1), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner.”

¶126

Learned HCGP would not dispute the aforesaid

¶127

orders and the fact that it covers the case at hand on all its fours.

¶128

In the light of the issue standing covered by the

¶129

judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition is liable to be disposed on the same terms.

¶130

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶131

ORDER

¶132

i. The petition is allowed .

¶133

ii. The proceedings pending in C.C. No.685 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Devanahalli, pursuant to FIR No.54 of 2018 of

¶134

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:40469 CRL.P No. 1005 of 2023

¶135

Devanahalli Town Police Station, Devanahalli for offences punishable under Sections 171-E and 171-H, qua the petitioners, stand quashed .

¶136

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶137

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Shri G Karthikeyan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri G Karthikeyan 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

Smt Meena N R Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr. Manish Parwani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vivekananda R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Jerald Cuntinho Vs State of Karnataka

L Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Hithesh Joshy Shiriya Vs the State of Karnataka