Mr Rohith v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025CRL.P/6253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.27412/2022 (Sections 79 and 80, Karnataka Police Act 1963 — non-cognizable offences) before MMTC-1 Mayo Hall Bengaluru; investigation by High Grounds Police without prior Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.; accused No.7 granted same benefit as quashment of accused Nos.1-6 in Crl.P.No.9904/2024; petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNNS; precedents: Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (ILR 2020 Kar 630), Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli, Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah, Padubidri Members Lounge, Veeranagouda; Karnataka High Court, Justice M.Nagaprasanna, order dated 04.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.27412/2022: the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court (MMTC-1), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

Mr Rohith Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.27412/2022: the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court (MMTC-1), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶120

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.27412/2022 (offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the K.P Act, non-cognizable) pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court (MMTC-1), Mayo Hall, registered by the High Grounds Police, should be quashed qua the petitioner (accused No.7) as their continuation would be an abuse of process, given that the police investigated without the prior permission of the Magistrate required under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., as held for accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crl.P.No.9904/2024.

¶21

Court's answer

Since the police did not obtain any permission from the learned Magistrate prior to registration of the crime, as mandated by Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., and the case is covered on all fours by this Court's earlier judgment (which quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crl.P.No.9904/2024 relying on Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka), the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are obliterated.

¶108

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, being accused No.7, stands to benefit from the same order passed qua accused No.6 in the earlier petition; accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order dated 03.08.2022 in C.C.No.27412/2022 stands quashed.

¶116

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (filed under S.528 BNNS) by accused No.7 seeking quashment of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.27412/2022 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court (MMTC-1), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, registered by the High Grounds Police for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 — non-cognizable offences. This Court had earlier quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crl.P.No.9904/2024, holding that investigation of a non-cognizable offence without prior permission of the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. vitiates the entire investigation (relying on Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 Kar 630). Holding that the police had obtained no such permission prior to registration of the crime and that the earlier judgment covered the case on all fours, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 03.08.2022 in C.C.No.27412/2022 qua the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. ROHITH, S/O S.VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, 6^TH CROSS, BAIRAVESHWARA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 072.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

RAVI PATIL, POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB, SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING, CCB, NT PETE, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.27412/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT (MMTC-1) MAYO HALL REGISTERED BY THE HIGH GROUNDS POLICE FOR THE O/P/U/S 79, 80 OF THE K.P ACT, AT ANNEXURE A IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS THE CONTINUATION PROCEEDINGS IS CLEAR ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is accused No.7 qua accused Nos.1 to 6. This court has quashed the proceedings in Crl.P.No.9904/2024.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the reason so rendered while quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 6 would squarely become applicable to the facts of the case at hand qua accused No.7, as well.

¶27

3. This court has held as follows:

¶28

"The petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 03.08.2022, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – I, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.27412/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard Sri Adarsha R., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶33

It is an admitted fact that though the offences are punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, which are non-cognizable offences and for a non-cognizable offence, prior permission of the learned Magistrate is imperative under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. In the case at hand, no permission is sought prior to registration of the crime.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader on verification of the records submits that no permission is sought before the learned Magistrate before registration of a crime.

¶35

In the light of the aforesaid submission, the entire investigation conducted without following the mandatory procedure by the respondents, would tumble down. The view of mine is fortified by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ , wherein it is held as follows:

¶36

“ 3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable 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

¶37

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

“155. Information as to non-cognizable cases

¶45

and investigation of such cases.

¶46

(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.

¶47

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

¶48

(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.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(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.”

¶53

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 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.

¶54

10. This Court in the case of Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli v. State of Karnataka and Others MANU/KA/1443/2016 [(2017) 1 AIR Kant R 461] considered the requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., where case relates to a noncognizable offence, in para 10 of the judgment this Court has observed as follows:

¶55

“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 noncognizable 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

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

seek the orders of 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.”

¶60

11. This Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka and Another in 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:—

¶61

“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.”

¶62

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

¶63

“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

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

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.”

¶68

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.

¶69

14. This Court in the case of Padubidri Members Lounge v. Director General and Inspector General of Police in W.P. Nos. 42073-75/2018 Decided on 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:—

¶70

“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 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.

¶71

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.”

¶72

15. Again this Court, in the case of Veeranagouda and others vs. The State of Karnataka in 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:—

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

“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 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.”

¶77

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.

¶78

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.

¶79

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

¶80

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable 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 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 noncognizable 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 subSection (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’.

¶84

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:—

¶85

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

¶86

*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.

¶87

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

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

¶92

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.

¶93

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.

¶94

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.

¶95

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.

¶96

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

¶97

v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the

¶98

11 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.

¶102

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:—

¶103

“Perused materials. Permitted

¶104

Sd/-”

¶105

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

¶106

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.”

¶107

(Emphasis supplied)

¶108

In the light of the fact that the police have not obtained any permission from the learned Magistrate prior to the registration of the Crime, as obtaining in Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the afore-quoted judgment stands covered the case at hand on all its fours. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶109

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶110

ORDER

¶111

a. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶112

12 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:24040 CRL.P No. 6253 of 2025

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

b. The order dated 03.08.2022, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – I, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.27412/2022, stands quashed.”

¶116

In the light of the order passed qua accused No.6, the petitioner stands to benefit with the same order.

¶117

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

[i] Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶120

[ii] The order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court (MMTC-1), Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.27412/2022, stands quashed.

¶121

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶122

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT:SS

Mr Rohith v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rohith v. 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

Shashank C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suguna Jayaveera Vs Sri. Raju

Sri N Ramesh Vs Sri. Kunhi Moosa

Smt. Pillamma Vs Shri Muniyappa

Dr. M. S. Mahesh Vs Smt. Subhadramma

Dr.M.P.Darakeshwaraih Vs the Principal Secretary