2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 58627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.25675 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ANTONI JERI
SON OF ANTONI KRISH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. BHARATIRAJ V.P.
SON OF VALLA PIRYAN CHOLAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
3. PRAVEEN
SON OF RAVI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
4. RAHUL NAYDU
SON OF OBALA NAYDU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
5. RAMESH
SON OF LATE SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
EMPLOYEES OF SKYYE BAR & LOUNGE
U.B. CITY, VITTAL MALYA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
6. SKYYE BAR & LOUNGE
U.B. CITY, VITTAL MALYA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
:: 2 ::
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
MR. VASANTH MANI
(IN FIR WRONGLY SHOWN AS
SKY BAR & RESTAURANT)
(PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,
BLACK RAIN HOSPITALITY
PRIVATE LIMITED)
&PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION
REPT. BY ITS SHO
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPT. BY ITS HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. CHAITHNYA C.J.
POLICE INSPECTOR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CUBBON PARK POLICE
STATION, K.B. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ
WITH
SECTION
482
OF
CODE
OF
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.103/2022 DATED 03.10.2022, REGISTERED BY R1
AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS
OF ANNEXURE-C, ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
(TRAFFIC
COURT-1),
N.R.
ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY.
:: 3 ::
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying to
quash the FIR in Crime No.103/2022 dated 03.10.2022
registered
by
respondent
No.1
and
consequential
proceedings in terms of Annexure-C, on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1), N.R. Road,
Bangalore City.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that :
It is the case of the prosecution that, on 01.10.2022
at about 11.30 p.m., the 6th petitioner i.e., Skyye Bar and
Lounge was conducting DJ with High Decibel than
permitted under the license and creating nuisance to the
public. On receiving the information, the police have
registered NCR and conducting raid on Skyye Bar and
Restaurant and seized the instruments from the said Bar.
It is further stated in the complaint that, the customers
were dancing and screaming loudly, thereby causing the
:: 4 ::
nuisance. After obtaining the permission from the learned
Magistrate, a case came to be registered in Crime
No.103/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections
102, 103 and 104 of the Karnataka Police Act (for short
'KP Act').
3.
Heard Sri. Sathyanarayana S. Chalke, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Renukaradhya, learned
HCGP for the respondent/State.
4.
Sri. Sathyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that, it is permitted to the
Accused/petitioners to conduct events in the Skyye Bar
and Restaurant. The complainant/police always on one or
the other pretext used to trouble the petitioners in
conducting
the
events
and
running
the
business
peacefully.
5.
It is further submitted that, the alleged
offences are non-cognizable and the complainant/police
should
have
complied
the
mandatory
requirements
:: 5 ::
stipulated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Though, the
permission obtained from the learned Magistrate to
register the case, it is not in accordance with law.
Therefore, the entire proceedings has to be quashed by
allowing the petition.
6.
Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently opposed
the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners
that, the respondent obtained permission from the
jurisdictional Magistrate to register the case, hence, the
mandatory requirement has been complied. It is further
submitted that the petitioners were creating nuisance by
increasing the volume of the sound speakers and also
causing disturbance to the public tranquility. Therefore,
the registration of the case against the petitioners is
appropriate and this petition is deserves to be dismissed.
7.
After having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusing the documents available on
:: 6 ::
record, the alleged offences mentioned in the FIR
discloses that the offences are non-cognizable in nature.
8.
Before adverting to the merit of the case, it is
necessary to refer the judgment of co-ordinate bench of
this Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah vs.
State of Karnataka and another in Crl. P. No.5934/2009
decided on 20.08.2013 considered the scope of Section
155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. has observed in paragraphs 5
and 6 as follows :
"Para5 - Section 155 of Cr.P.C. deals with the
procedure to be adopted in respect of an information
received by the officer in charge of a police station
relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence.
According to sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
when an officer in charge of the Police Station receives
an information as to the commission of a non-cognizable
offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the
substance of the information in the prescribed book and
refer the informant to the Magistrate. According to sub-
section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. no police officer
shall investigate a non-cognizable case without a order of
a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the
case for trial. Thus reading of sub-section (1) of Section
155 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO,
:: 7 ::
who receives information as to the commission of a non-
cognizable offence is only to enter or cause to be entered
the substance