Procedural irregularity in the registration of a non-cognizable report as a private complaint cannot be a ground for invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. Evidence is necessary to support the allegations made in the charge sheet.

JUDGMENT

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 19.3.2019 in PCR No. 3743/2019 on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, as also the FIR registered as Crime No. 35/2019 by the first respondent police and the charge sheet filed pursuant to it.

2. Briefly stated, the events that led the petitioner to approach this court are as follows :-

On 11.3.2019, the Joint Secretary of the Association called Grama Seva Sangha, Thyagaraja Nagar, Bengaluru, made an application to the Commissioner of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP') seeking permission to organize a peaceful protest meet at Mahatma Gandhi Circle, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, at about 4.30 PM on 12.3.2019. The Assistant Commissioner (Elections) of BBMP made an endorsement on the said application stating that permission to hold protest meet was not necessary as it was not a political programme. It appears that the said demonstration was held and thereafter, at about 19.30 hours on 12.3.2019, one D.Murthy, Assistant Engineer, BBMP, who was on the vigilance squad in connection with the election duty, made a report to the Station House Officer of Cubbon Park Police Station stating that two persons namely Praveen K, accused No.1 and Abhilash C.A, accused No.2, gathered a group of 25 to 30 people, used mike without obtaining permission from the concerned authority and caused obstruction to the pedestrians and to the traffic. He also stated that the petitioner who was intending to contest in the Lok Sabha elections also participated in the said meeting and spoke about the elections and in regard to his participation in the protest meet, the video clippings and whatsapp messages were sent to him.

3. Since the report did not disclose a cognizable offence, the Station House Officer registered it in NCR No. 46/2019 and then placed it before the Magistrate seeking permission to register FIR. On 19.3.2019 the Magistrate passed an order to register the NCR as a private complaint (PCR) and proceed further according to section 156(3) of the Code. Thereafter, the police registered it in Crime No. 35/2019 for the offences under section 35 of the Karnataka Police Act and section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. The police held investigation and filed charge sheet against three persons including the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 290 of IPC and sections 35 and 103 of the Karnataka Police Act read with section 34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed two points for quashing the FIR and also the charge sheet. His first point of argument was that when the investigating officer sought permission of the Magistrate for registration of FIR and to investigate the matter, he ordered the said NCR to be registered as a private complaint under section 200 of the Code. There was no supporting affidavit of the first informant. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 to argue that whenever a private complaint was presented before a Magistrate, it should be accompanied by an affidavit. Filing of affidavit is now mandatory and since there was no affidavit in this case, the Magistrate should not have permitted the investigation officer to investigate. For this reason, FIR and the charge sheet are bad.

4.1. His second point of argument was that when the protest meet was held, the petitioner had not yet filed his nomination to contest in the Lok Sabha elections. He just participated in the meeting as a citizen. He was not the organizer of the protest meet. Moreover the organizers applied for permission from the BBMP and the endorsement made by the Assistant Commissioner would clearly show that the permission was not necessary as it was