Allowed

Gode Gadlingappa Alias Kuntu Gadeppa S/O Lakshman v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/100917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged the initiation of proceedings for offences under Sections 504, 506, and 323 IPC. The Court held that for non-cognizable offences, a Magistrate must pass a specific order designating the investigating officer rather than merely endorsing a requisition as 'permitted'. Consequently, it quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.1096/2019 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 IPC are quashed.

Gode Gadlingappa Alias Kuntu Gadeppa S/O Lakshman Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100917 OF 2024 (482)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GODE GADLINGAPPA @ KUNTU GADEPPA S/O. LAKSHMAN, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUTTAPPA TEMPLE STREET, KAKKABEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK BALLARI 583101.

¶8

LAKSHMANA @ KOLI LAKSHMI REDDY S/O. LAKSHMANA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O. NEAR HANUMANTHRAYA TEMPLE, KAKKABEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK BALLRI-583101.

¶9

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DURUGANNA S/O. SANNAMALLAPPA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. JANATA COLONY, KAKKABEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK BALLRI-583103.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH HIREMATH FOR SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶17

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA, DHARWAD 580011.

¶18

LAKSHMANA D/O. LATE SHIVAGANGAPPA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O. KAKKABEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI-583103.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1096/2019 IN CRIME NO.155/2019 REGISTERED BEFORE BALLARI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 504, 506, 323, R/W. 34 OF IPC PENDING IN THE COURT OF III RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BALLARI, AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2, 3.

¶22

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

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Notice issued to respondent No.2 is duly served, remained absent.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶28

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1096/2019 pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶29

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

¶30

On 09.05.2019, the first informant-Lakshmana lodged the complaint alleging that, on the same day at about 6.30 P.M. at Kakkabevinahalli village bus stand, the petitioner/accused 1 to 3 took quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language, intentionally insulted him to provoke

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶32

breach of peace, pulled his shirt, torned his shirt pocket and made criminal intimidation to eliminate him, if he do not withdraw N.C.No.48/2019 filed by his mother in the same police station. Hence, he lodged the complaint. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition contending that the ingredients of offences are not attracted and alleged offences are non-cognizable in nature

¶33

but trial Court has not complied with the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Further, the jurisdictional Magistrate on the requisition of Police endorsed as “permitted” and such endorsement is not an order in the eye of law under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. On all these grounds, counsel prayed to allow the petition.

¶34

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the jurisdictional Magistrate has permitted the concerned police officer to take up the investigation and therefore, there is substantial compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Thus prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶36

6. It is not in dispute that, the alleged offences

¶37

under Sections 504, 506 and 323 of the IPC is a noncognizable one and when the report is received by the SHO of a police station in respect of commission of a noncognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory requirements of Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C.

¶38

Sections 155 (1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as

¶39

follows:

¶40

"S. 155 - Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. - (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 noncognizable 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.

¶41

(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."

¶42

8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid proposition

¶43

of law, it is the duty of the police officer to enter the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶45

substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the police officer to investigate the case as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, unless the police officer is permitted by the Magistrate in a written order to investigate a non-cognizable offence, the police officer does not get the jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or a charge sheet.

¶46

This Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka¹ , considering non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., has held as under:

¶47

"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

¶48

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶58

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.

¶59

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."

¶60

In view of the mandatory requirements stated in Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the ratio laid down in the case stated supra, the SHO of a police station has no authority unless the jurisdictional Magistrate permits him for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. Whereas, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate has passed an order on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the police station by writing the words as 'permitted’. But,

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶62

this Court in catena of decisions held that the said endorsement on the requisition submitted by the police officer is not a judicious order, having applied its mind and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the police officer to take up the investigation for a noncognizable offence. Therefore, the SHO of a police station if received a complaint from the PSI and in turn, the SHO has to submit a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate an offence punishable under Sections 323 504 and 506 IPC, which is a noncognizable offence.

¶63

Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate require to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

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

¶66

The proceedings initiated against the

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9310 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2024

¶69

petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No1096/2019 pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court Ballari, is quashed.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

AC/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Gode Gadlingappa Alias Kuntu Gadeppa S/O Lakshman v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gode Gadlingappa Alias Kuntu Gadeppa S/O Lakshman 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

Sri Manoj Pai S/O. Sri. B. H. Gurudatt Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Rakesh Shyamarao Bhajanti Vs State of Karnataka

Shrikanth S/O. Ranganath Malode Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmikant Shankaregowda Goudar Vs the State of Karnataka Dharwad

Mariya S/O Antoni Asangi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Amar S/O Kisan Alias Kisanrao Yallurkar Vs State of Karnataka by