T.V. Nataraj Vs the State by

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9712 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

T.V. NATARAJ S/O VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VIDYARANYA YUVAKA SANGHA, NO 33/5, GANGAPPA COMPLEX, D.V.G. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004

¶8

NAME AND ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN CHARGE SHEET, NATARAJU, ORGANIZER OF PROGRAMME, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA .P.N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHANKARPURA POLICE STATION, PMK ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560004 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

SHANKARAPPA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ASI, SHANKARPURA POLICE STATION, PMK ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560004

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶20

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE MMTC IV (XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE), TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.31 AND 103 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6555/2023 AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶25

“a) Quash the order dated 11/04/2023 passed by the Hon'ble MMTC -IV (XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate), taking cognizance against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under section 31 & 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 6555/2023

¶26

b) Quash the FIR in Crime No. 31/2022 registered by the Respondent Police.

¶27

c) PASS such other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl

¶29

SPP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶32

A perusal of the material on record comprising of the

¶33

complaint, FIR, Charge sheet, statement of witnesses etc will indicate that the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 31 and 103 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which are now presently pending in C.C.No.6555/2023 arising out of Crime No.31/2022 on the file of the MMTC –IV (XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru), is a matter of record and undisputed fact that prior to commencement of investigation, necessary permission in relation to the aforesaid non cognizable offences had not been obtained by the respondentPolice as mandatorily required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C as held by this Court and in contravention of the principles enunciated in the cases of in the cases of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024.

¶34

In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs.

¶35

State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630, this Court held as under:

¶36

“ 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

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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 noncognizable 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 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

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶44

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 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’.

¶45

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

¶46

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

¶47

*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

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶50

whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.

¶51

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 Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶57

whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶58

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 noncognizable 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

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:—

¶61

“Perused materials. Permitted

¶62

Sd/-”

¶63

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.

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶66

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.

¶67

24. Registry is directed to forward the copy of the order to the Director of Karnataka State Judicial Academy, Bengaluru, for information and necessary action.

¶68

25. Registry is also directed to circulate the copy of the order to all the judicial Magistrates in the State to follow guidelines laid down in the order.”

¶69

In the case of Sri. Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs.

¶70

State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated

¶71

07.11.2024, this Court held as under:

¶72

‘9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 504 and 34 of the IPC. They are admittedly non cognizable. Therefore, a non-cognizable report was rendered by the jurisdictional police, after interaction on 24.08.2020. The Station House Officer then travels to the Court of the Magistrate seeking permission for registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 34 of the IPC, since the offences alleged were non-

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶75

cognizable, the nod of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. was imperative. The learned Magistrate passes the following order:

¶76

"The PSI of Turuvekere Police Station approached with requisition seeking permission to proceed with the investigation of non-cognizable case.

¶77

It is mentioned that the complainant lodged the written information about alleged insult caused by the proposed accused persons.

¶78

As per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., there is a bar for the police officer to proceed with the investigation of the non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial.

¶79

When, police officer received, the information about non- cognizable case, then necessarily seek from permission the Jurisdictional magistrate to proceed with the investigation.

¶80

By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non-cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law."

¶81

The learned Magistrate records that the Police Officer receives the information about a non-cognizable offence, then necessarily has to seek permission from jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed with the investigation. This is the procedure that is narrated in the order. The so called application of mind by the learned Magistrate is only in the words "By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a noncognizable case is received by the police officer. In the

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶84

interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law."

¶85

10. The afore-quoted words of the learned Magistrate can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears application of mind.

¶86

11. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to defend this action on the score that it is a lengthy order and it does bear application of mind. I decline to accept the said submission as what is required in law, while the Magistrate grants permission to register a crime, is application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an order that has even a semblance of application of mind. It is rather shocking that Magistrates while granting permission, do not apply their mind and callously grant permission to register the crime while passing orders under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. These acts of passing orders, which bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time and again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge in passing of such orders. The Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act.

¶87

12. In the case at hand, the afore-quoted paragraph is the reason. It is in fact an order which has no reasons. Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on application of mind. It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:8883 CRL.P No. 9712 of 2023

¶90

that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.”

¶91

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered

¶92

opinion that the impugned proceedings in contravention of Section 155(2)of Cr.P.C, same deserves to be quashed.

¶93

In the result, I pass the following:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶96

ii) The proceedings in FIR in Crime No.31/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 31 and 103 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 registered against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 11.04.2023 passed in C.C.No.6555/2023 by the MMTC-IV (XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru), are hereby quashed.

¶97

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶98

MDS

¶99

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49

T.V. Nataraj v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.V. Nataraj v. the State by

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

Prathapa MD Vs State of Karnataka

Mahaveera Credit Co. Operative Society (L) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajay. P Vs State of Karnataka

G.V. Padmanabha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anusuyamm.R., Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Vs Bangalore Soft Drinks Private Limited