Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 53 (KAR)

LAXMIKANT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-01-05

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and complaint in Crime No. 85/2016 of Chittapur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'K.P. Act' for short) and also for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as averred in the petition are that, a suo-moto complaint was registered by the P.S.I., Chittapur Police on 13.08.2016, wherein it was alleged that at about 10.30 a.m. on 13.08.2016, he received a credible information that three persons are giving mataka chits to people by taking money in order to cheat them. Immediately, the concerned police secured two panch witnesses and thereafter they went near the spot at about 11.00 a.m.; there, they noticed that three persons sitting on a motorcycle were shouting that for Rs. 1/- win Rs.80/- and they were receiving amount from the people. It is further alleged that when they saw the police, one person ran away from the spot, two persons were apprehended and on enquiry they revealed that they are involved in the alleged activities; on conducting search, they recovered an amount of Rs.2,350/-, two ball pens, 6 mataka chits and also a motorcycle bearing No. KA-32/Y-7082 from the possession of the accused and a case has been registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very registration of the case under Section 78(3) of the K.P. Act itself is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable either in law or on facts. He has also submitted that since the offences alleged are non-cognisable offences, the police ought to have taken prior permission of the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter immediately after receiving the information which is not done in this case. Hence, the action taken by the police without prior permission of the learned Magistrate is null and void and not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that without obtaining prior permission of the learned Magistrate, the Police Officer was not at all authorised to proceed with the investigation of the matter. Hence, the action taken by the police without prior permission of the learned Magistrate is null and void and not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that without obtaining prior permission of the learned Magistrate, the Police Officer was not at all authorised to proceed with the investigation of the matter. He has also submitted that immediately after entering information in the diary the police ought to have approached the learned Magistrate seeking prior permission to proceed with the matter which is not done in the present case and it is not an irregularity but it is an illegality which cannot be cured. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence, the complaint is without basis and as such the FIR and complaint are liable to be quashed. On these grounds, he prays for allowing of the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently argued contending that whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or not is a matter to be ascertained during the course of trial. He has also contended that the investigating officer proceeding with the matter without seeking prior permission of the concerned Magistrate is not an illegality, but it is a mere irregularity. He has also contended that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence and as such the case has been registered against him and there is material to show that he has involved in the alleged crime. As such, at this premature stage it is not proper to interfere with the proceedings and quash the complaint and FIR. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have perused the averments made in the petition, copy of the complaint, FIR and seizure panchnama. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made available the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 101350/2015 and the connected cases dated 16.11.2015 and also the cases disposed of by the co-ordinate Judge. 8. I have perused the said orders of the co-ordinate Judge of this Court. Looking to the said orders, it is seen that the said Court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter in detail. 8. I have perused the said orders of the co-ordinate Judge of this Court. Looking to the said orders, it is seen that the said Court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter in detail. So also considered the scope of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and definition aspect with regard to the cognisable and non-cognisable offences and the schedule appended to the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with the said definition. While considering these aspects, it has also referred to the relevant decisions on the aspect which are referred to in the said order After considering all these aspects and after applying its judicial mind, has allowed the petitions and consequently quashed the proceedings initiated in the respective petitions. 9. Keeping in view the said aspect, if we peruse the records, the complaint reveals that the police officials after receipt of the credible information have strait away proceeded to the spot and without obtaining the prior permission as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. have apprehended the accused and seized the material. Considering the said aspect into consideration and the dictum laid down in the above cases, I am of the considered opinion that the allegation in respect of the petitioner under Section 78(3) of the K.P Act and the other offences are also similarly placed. In that view of the matter, in order to have consistency in the matter, it is just and necessary to allow the petition, as it is also similarly placed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR and complaint in Crime No. 85/2016 of Chittapur Police Station are quashed.