Back
- 1 -
CRL.P No. 1023 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1.
GIRISH S/O. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O N. BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
2.
PUTTEGOWDA B.B.,
S/O BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O N. BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT -573 116.
3.
SHIVARAJ,
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O N. BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 116.
4.
RANGASWAMY K.S.,
S/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O KUMBENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT -573 116.
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 1023 of 2023
5.
BABU S.P.,
S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA @ JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O GAYITHRI EXTENSION,
RAGHAVENDRA SAW MILL ROAD,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN- 573 116.
6.
MALLESH I.M.,
S/O MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. IYANORAHALLI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT -577 133.
7.
GOPAL T.R @ LOKI,
S/O RANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O CHOWLAGALA VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT -573 116.
8.
GANGADHARA,
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O NETTEKERE VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT -573 116.
9.
ABHISHEKA T.M @ ABHI,
S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA,
DIVISION KEB QUATRSS BEHIND,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN -573 116.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA
- 3 -
CRL.P No. 1023 of 2023
TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE -560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH
THE
CHARGE
SHEET
FILED
AGAINST
PETITIONERS
IN
CR.NO.26/2022 BY THE CHANNARAYAPATNA CITY POLICE, FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79, 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
COURT
AT
CHAANNARAAPATNA,
HASSAN
DISTRICT
IN
C.C.NO.329/2022.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C.No.329/2022, pending on the
- 4 -
file
of
the
Principal
Civil
Judge
and
JMFC
Court,
Channarayapatna, Hassan District, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963 ('Act' for short), which are non-cognizable offences.
This Court concerning accused Nos.10 to 16 in the
very same crime, crime No.26/2022 for the offences punishable
under Section 79 and 80 of the Act had passed the following
order:
" 2. The petitioners are before this Court calling
in question the proceedings in C.C.No.329/2022,
pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC
Court, Channarayapatna, Hassan District, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 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 Section 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 -
“4.
The main ground of attack by the
petitioner in respective petitions is that the
offence alleged is under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act.
1963 and it is a non cognizable offence. Before
proceeding to investigate the offence the Police
ought to have taken prior permission from the
concerned court as required under Section 155(2)
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no compliance of
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended
that even if the permission from the Magistrate
was obtained, it is not in accordance with the
guidelines
issued
in
Vaggeppa
Gurulinga
Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. The State of
Karnataka, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630.
Learned HCGP has contended that in some of the
cases, the Police have obtained permission of the
concerned court and then investigated the matter
and filed the charge sheet. He further contended
that the Police have taken the care to comply
mandatory requirements and then only they have
proceeded with the matter and ultimately filed
the charge sheet.
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 Section
155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and
held that offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act
is a non cognizable offence. Investigation of cases
under Section 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 section 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
- 6 -
investigate a non cognizable offence as required
under Section 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 Sections 78(3) of
K.P. Act and Section 420 of IPC and charge sheet
has been filed only for the offence under Section
78(3) of K.P. Act. Section 420 of IPC is invoked
only to get over requirement of prior permission
of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not contain
any allegation to attract ingredients of Section
420 of IPC. There is nothing in the FIR to indicate
that any member
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
