IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Bhakatha Kuchela – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4707/2022
Decided On : 01-06-2022
Karnataka Police Act - Non-Cognizable Offences - Ss. 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the proceedings in C.C.No.596/2020, which involved offences punishable under Ss. 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, non-cognizable offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR for non-cognizable offences could not have been registered without seeking permission from the Magistrate under Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court referred to previous judgments and held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners could not sustain in law.
Issues: The main issue was the non-compliance of Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the lack of permission from the Magistrate to register the FIR for non-cognizable offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and held that the investigation and proceedings for non-cognizable offences without prior permission from the Magistrate are vitiated by illegalities.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.596/2020 were quashed for the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Harisha A.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Yashodha K.P., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.596/2020, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Madduru, Mandya District, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which are non-cognizable offences.
3. In the light of the fact that the said offences were non-cognizable, FIR could not have been registered against the petitioners on such offences, without at the outset seeking permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate under Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
4. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, no such permission is sought from the Magistrate to register the FIR or conduct investigation. The issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101632/2021 and connected cases, disposed of on 21/9/2021, wherein this Court has held as follows:
5. Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli V/s. The State of Karnataka, By Cowl Bazaar Police Station, reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3355 elaborately considered the provisions of Sec. 155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and held that offence under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non cognizable offence. Investigation of cases under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act and all further proceedings before the court are vitiated by incurable illegalities or defects for want of permission to investigate the case by the competent Magistrate under sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the Police have taken prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate a non cognizable offence as required under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. In crime No.151/2020 of Ranebennur Rural Police station, the FIR came to be registered for the offence under Ss. 78(3) of K.P. Act and Sec. 420 of IPC and charge sheet has been filed only for the offence under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act. Sec. 420 of IPC is invoked only to get over requirement of prior permission of the Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not contain any allegation to attract ingredients of Sec. 420 of IPC. There is nothing in the FIR to indicate that any member of the public had complained of cheating by the petitioner or other accused persons named in the FIR. In the said crime No.151/2020 the Police have not obtained permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is an abuse of process of court.
8. The coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (supra) after elaborately considering Sec. 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C . and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued guideli
Moin Basha Kurnooli vs. The State of Karnataka, By Cowl Bazaar Police Station
Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka
Non-cognizable offences under the Karnataka Police Act require prior permission from the Magistrate under Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the investigation to be valid.
Mandatory compliance with Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is crucial for police investigations of non-cognizable offences.
Prosecutorial proceedings for non-cognizable offences are invalid if the mandatory permission from a Magistrate is not obtained as stipulated in Sections 155(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Failure to obtain permission for investigating a non-cognizable offence under Sec. 155 of the Cr.P.C can vitiate the proceedings and lead to the quashing of the FIR and complaint.
Police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without a prior order from the Magistrate, as per Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.