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

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

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top