The court ruled that non-cognizable offence allegations must meet clear legal standards, and Magistrates cannot permit investigations without proper scrutiny. Complaints lacking necessary elements must be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

CAV ORDER

Both these petitions are preferred by different accused in a solitary criminal case in C.C.No.638 of 2024 arising out of crime in Crime No.107 of 2023 of one and the same incident. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1369 of 2024 is accused No.2 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2993 of 2024 is accused No.1. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in Criminal petition No.1369 of 2024 are narrated.

2. Heard Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions and Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioners in both these cases are alleged of offences punishable under Section 171-E and 171-F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act (‘the Act’ for short). The 2^nd respondent is the complainant/Chief of Flying Squad Team. During the elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly which was slated to be held on 10-05-2023 the squad is said to have got some credible information on 05-04-2023 at about 5.05 p.m. from the election control room that some pressure cookers were stored in a building of particular address of Bangalore and they were stored to distribute to the voters is the allegation. On receiving the said information, the 2^nd respondent inspects the said premises and found about 231 cookers having the stickers of accused No.2. The owner of the premises is the petitioner in the companion petition. Therefore, both these petitioners are drawn into the web of proceedings. The 2^nd respondent, on the said incident, registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.107 of 2023. It is registered after securing permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate as the offences alleged were all non-cognizable. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences and the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence, registers criminal case in C.C.No.638 of 2024 and issues summons to these petitioners. Issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Murthy D. Naik appearing for the petitioners in both these cases would contend that the proceedings are vitiated on several circumstances. He would project that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. bears no application of mind and the informant has not travelled to the Court of the learned Magistrate seeking permission, but it is the Station House Officer who seeks permission. The ingredients even if they are taken on their face value would not amount to an offence under Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Act. He would seek to place reliance upon the following judgments:

(1) ANAND SINGH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Criminal Petition No.3082 of 2007;

(2) B.S.YEDIYURAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2020 SCC OnLine Kar.1540;

(3) PRAKASH B.HUKKERI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Criminal Petition No.200722 of 2022;

(4) VIJESH PILLAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Writ Petition No.11186 of 2023;

(5) PRAKASH RAJ @ PRAKASH RAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal Petition No.2394 of 2020;

(6) JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal Petition No.5488 of 2023.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that it is not mandatory that the informant alone should go to the Magistrate seeking permission. This Court in VIJESH PILLAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹, has considered this issue and has so held. He would further contend that ingredients of the o