IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201249/2016

BETWEEN

1 . SIDDU

S/O APPARAO BIRADAR,

AGE:38 YRS,

OCC:TV-9 PRESS REPORTER RAICHUR,

R/O IDSMT LAYOUT, MANTRALAY ROAD,

RAICHUR.

2 . PRASHANT

S/O JAYAPRAKASH NAREGALKAR

AGE:28 YRS,

OCC:TV-9 CAMERAMEN RAICHUR,

R/O IDSMT LAYOUT, MATRALAY ROAD,

RAICHUR.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. BABURAO MANGANE, AND ASHOK B. MULAGE,

ADVS.)

AND

1 . THE STATE THROUGH

RAICHUR WEST P.S., RAICHUR.

2 . TANVEER SETH, S/O AJEEJ SETH

AGE:49 YRS, OCC:MINISTER

FOR PRIMARY EDUCATION,

MINORITIES AND WAKF

2

GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE.

…

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND

R2 SERVWED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING

TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUSH THE FIR &

COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.234/2016 DATED:11.11.2016

OF

RAICHUR

WEST

P.S.

RAICHUR

AGAINST

THE

PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

1.

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. by

accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.234/2016 of Raichur West

Police Station, Raichur, with the following prayer:

"To quash the FIR and Complaint in

Crime

No.234/2016

dated

11.11.2016

of

Raichur West Police Station, Raichur against

the petitioners in the interest of justice and

equity."

2.

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of

the Petition are as under:

Second respondent who was the in-charge Minister

of

Raichur

District

for

attending

"Tippu

Jayanthi"

3

celebrations

at

Raichur

along

with

other

public

representatives of the District. At about 11.00 a.m., after

inauguration address, the second respondent while sitting

on the dais was apparently reading the messages received

on his mobile and also verifying the messages on his

WhatsApp mobile so as to get the information of Tippu

Jayanthi. While so viewing the messages on his mobile

telephone

through

Whatsapp,

the

Cameraman

(2^nd

petitioner

herein)

of

TV-9

of

News

Channel

was

videographing the events of the events, also videographed

the messages being viewed by the second respondent.

3.

The accused No.2 with an intention to cause

insult to the second respondent, handed over the video

clippings to first accused, who exhibited the video clippings

in the news, with a comment that during the celebration of

Tippu Jayanthi, a the second respondent was observing

obscene pictures in his mobile. Based on such complaint,

police registered a case for the offence punishable under

Section 504 of IPC which is per se non cognizable offence.

4

4.

The accused persons who are petitioners

before this court questioning the very registration of the

case as the investigating officer has not followed the

prescribed procedure.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

contended that the investigating agency have not properly

followed the required procedure for registration of a non-

cognizable case and thus sought for quashing of the

proceedings.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader argued that the investigating officer after obtaining

permission registered a case and therefore, it is legal and

in accordance with law and thus sought for dismissal of the

petition.

7.

The mandatory procedure to be followed by

the Investigation Officer on receipt of a non cognizance

offence is enumerated in Section 155 of Cr.PC. What is

the procedure to be adopted by the Investigation Officer

and the learned Magistrate in respect of a non-cognizance

5

offence is clearly spelt out in a judgment of this court in

the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of

Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630. Relevant

paragraphs in this case is culled out hereunder:

"18. Under these circumstances, this

Court felt it necessary to lay