SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34239

- 1 -

CRL.P No. 9710 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9710 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SANDEEPA K.R.,

S/O LATE RAJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/O NO.BB2/H, SHARAVATHI BUILDING

DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY DAVANAGERE EXTENSION POLICE STATION

DAVANGERE - 577 001

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

THIPPESWAMY P. GORAVAR

S/O G.K.PANCHANNA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

R/O NO.1174/3, 1ST MAIN

7TH CROSS, VINOBANAGARA

DAANAGERE ALSO AT

SALAGANAHALLI

HARIHAR TALUK 3 577 601.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;

Digitally signed by

PADMAVATHI B K

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 9710 of 2021

SRI K.SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY

THE RESPONDENT POLICE AND COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY THE

TRIAL COURT IN C.C.NO.361/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF

THE I-JMFC, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 507, 506,

107, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings

in

C.C.No.361/2017

registered

for

offences

punishable under Sections 506, 507, 107, 201 r/w Section 34

of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri.S.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing

for

petitioner,

Smt.K.P.Yashodha,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Shashikanth

Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. A complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent

complainant before the jurisdictional police on 28.03.2016

which becomes a crime in Crime No.114/2016 for offences

punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC. The police,

- 3 -

after investigation, have filed a charge sheet for offences

punishable under Sections 506, 507, 107, 201 r/w Section 34

of the IPC. The crime so registered on 4.8.2016 on a complaint

made by the complainant for offences punishable under

Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are non-cognizanble offences.

On a non-cognizable offence, FIR could not have been

registered without the same being placed before the learned

Magistrate seeking his permission to register the FIR and

conduct investigation.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would

produce the records pertaining to the lis wherein endorsement

is issued by the learned Magistrate upon the communication

sent by the first respondent as <perused, permitted=. With

such endorsement, the investigation takes place and charge

sheet is filed by the police. The Co-ordinate benches of this

Court, in plethora of cases, have held such endorsements would

not suffice and cannot stand the scrutiny of law, as permission

should be granted by the learned Magistrate, on application of

judicious mind. In one such decision rendered by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101632/2021 and

- 4 -

connected cases, disposed of on 21.9.2021, this Court has

held as follows:

<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 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

- 5 -

permission

from

the

jurisdictional

Magistrate

to

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top