Basavaraj Matigar Vs the State of Karnataka

VINOD KASHINATH ASOOTI S/O.KASHINATH S.ASOOTI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.220 SHANKAMBRI PRASIDA SAMPIGE NAGAR, DOUBLE ROAD DODDANAYAKANA KOPPA DHARWAD-580 008

¶12

(BY SRI SIDDHARTH P.DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NAVALGUND PS REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

SRI RAMACHANDRA K.MADIVAL MAJOR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:12260 CRL.P No. 3325 of 2025

¶19

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AT FLYING SQUAD MAGISTRATE NAVALGUND-69

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDITIONAL SPP)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. (UNDER SECTION 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.05.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B; THE FIR IN CRIME NO.106/2018 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1NAVALAGUND POLICE AT ANNEXURE-A; THE CHARGESHEET IN CC.NO.16471/2023 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1-NAVALGUND POLICE STATION AT ANNEXURE-C AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.16471/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 171H READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking

¶27

to quash the proceedings in CC.No.16471/2023 registered by respondent No.1-Navalgund Police Station arising out of Crime No.106/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 171H read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending on the file of XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:12260 CRL.P No. 3325 of 2025

¶30

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that on the basis of the complaint dated 06.05.2018, the jurisdictional Police registered a crime in Crime No.106/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 171H read with Section 34 of IPC. It is further contended that after the respondent-Police conducted the investigation, the chargesheet came to be submitted in CC.No.16471/2023 for the said alleged offence.

¶31

2.1 Learned counsel for petitioner contends that based on the chargesheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 171H read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 and another person. When this being the state of affairs, accused No.3, who was also prosecuted for the very same offence, approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6161/2024 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 05.12.2024, allowed the said petition by quashing the proceedings in

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:12260 CRL.P No. 3325 of 2025

¶34

CC.No.16471/2023 as against the petitioner therein/ accused No.3. Learned counsel for petitioners, relying upon the said order of the Coordinate Bench as stated herein supra , contends that the petitioners herein also would be entitled to the similar order.

¶35

Under the circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case as stated supra, has extracted certain guidelines laid down by another Coordinate Bench of this Court at para-20 in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 , which is extracted hereinbelow:

¶36

"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

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:12260 CRL.P No. 3325 of 2025

¶39

following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12260 CRL.P No. 3325 of 2025

¶45

effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶46

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."

¶47

The petitioners herein also stand in the same

¶48

footing as that of accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.6161/2024 and the offence alleged is the same namely, Section 171H read with Section 34 of IPC, so also, the charges.

¶49

In view of accused No.3 having approached this Court and the proceedings quashed against him for the similar offence as that of the petitioners herein, the petitioners would also be entitled to the very same order for the reasons and discussions stated hereinabove.

¶50

Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) This petition is allowed;

¶53

ii) the proceedings in CC.No.16471/2023 registered by respondent No.1-Navalgund Police Station

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:12260 CRL.P No. 3325 of 2025

¶56

arising out of Crime No.106/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 171H read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending on the file of XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶57

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶58

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Basavaraj Matigar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraj Matigar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muzammil Pasha Vs Abida Banu @ Bibi Ayesha

Sri J Harinath Rao Vs Smt Swetha K

Meena Devi Vs the Manager

Anand K S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Amula Baburao Belgavkar Vs State of Karnataka

Ramachandra Vs Shashidhara