Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7916
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J
SHIVAKUMAR S/O. PARASHURAM ILAGER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 102821 of 2024
Failure to comply with statutory qualifications for the investigation officer invalidates the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the FIR lodged under Sections 143, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. This FIR stemmed from allegations of illegal activities at a lodge, where the petitioner was accused of prostitution-related offenses. The court found that the FIR was vitiated due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, including a lack of a proper special police officer as mandated by the Act. The main issue is whether the requirements for conducting a raid and registering an FIR were properly followed. The court determined the actions taken by the police were invalid due to procedural deficiencies. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court identifies lack of necessary statutory compliance in raid and fir registration. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER
1. The challenge in this petition is directed at the registration of the First Information Report lodged by the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act , 1956.
2. The prosecution’s case is that, upon receiving credible information regarding illegal activities being carried out at Surabhi Lodge, the complainant, along with his staff, conducted a raid at the lodge. During the raid, it was discovered that women were being induced to engage in prostitution. The women further alleged that accused No. 1 had induced them into prostitution and introduced them to the lodge owner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Section 13 of the Act specifies that for each area to be designated by the State Government, a special police officer shall be appointed by or on behalf of that Government to handle offences under this Act in that area.
5. Section 15 of the Act pertains to searches without a warrant and stipulates that if the special police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable under this Act has been or is being committed on the premises, and that obtaining a search warrant would cause undue delay, such officer may, after recording the grounds for doing so, enter and search the premises without a warrant. However, in this case, the special police officer has not recorded the reasons for not obtaining a search warrant to conduct the raid, citing the potential disappearance of evidence or the accused fleeing the scene. 6. Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Act specifies that the special police officer must be at least of the rank of an Inspector of Police. In the present case, the Police Sub-Inspector registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. As there has been no notification issued by the Government under Section 2(i) of the Act, the Police Sub-Inspector cannot be considered the special officer authorized to conduct the investigation, and also he is below the rank of Inpecrtor of Police. Therefore, the raid, subsequent registration of the FIR, and investigation are vitiated due to non- compliance with Section 15 of the Act. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.216/2024 registered by the Mudhol Police Station, Mudhol Circle insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby quashed.
