- 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
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.