Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 164 (KAR)

VEERANAGOUDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2019-01-11

H.P.SANDESH

body2019
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. I have heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also the learned HCGP for respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 6/8/2018 at about 12.00 p.m., the police and staff were went to Balaji Recreation Club, where they found that petitioners and other accused persons were playing the game of cards known as 'Andar Bahar' at 1.00p.m. On enquiry, the accused persons ran away from room and 26 persons were caught hold and enquired about their names. The respondent police have registered the case in crime No.273/2018 against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of tKarnataka Police act, 1963. 3. The main contention of the petitioners in the petition is that the offences alleged against the petitioners is non cognizable offence and the Investigating Officer did not comply section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. that they have not given any information to the Magistrate and also not sought any permission to proceed with the case and without complying the mandatory provisions, registered the case against the petitioners. 4. Heard the petitioners' counsel and the petitioners' counsel reiterated the grounds urged in the petition in support of his contention he also relied upon the order of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.100476/2016. 5. Per contra, the HCGP in his arguments he contends that on credible information the inspector had conducted raid on the recreation club and these petitioners and others were playing the game of 'Andar Baahar' and they have been apprehended, as there are materials to proceed against the petitioners. 6. After having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and the HCGP, the point that arises for consideration is, whether this Court can exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., in the case on hand. 7. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, an allegation is made that on 6.8.2018 at around 3.30 p.m., the Police Sub-Inspector has conducted raid and found these petitioners when they were playing 'Andar Baahar' in the recreation club and they have been arrested and seized the money to the tune of Rs.2,41,150/-. 7. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, an allegation is made that on 6.8.2018 at around 3.30 p.m., the Police Sub-Inspector has conducted raid and found these petitioners when they were playing 'Andar Baahar' in the recreation club and they have been arrested and seized the money to the tune of Rs.2,41,150/-. The main contention of the petitioners is that the offence alleged against the petitioners is a non cognizable offence and when the non cognizable offence is reported, it is mandatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to inform the same to the concerned Magistrate and also to seek the permission under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. to proceed with the case and the same has not been complied by the Investigating Officer. The HCGP also, in his arguments he did not dispute the fact that offence alleged is a non cognizable offence and when he did not dispute that it is a non cognizable offence, the mandatory provisions under section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. has to be complied and there are no material with regard to compliance of section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. 8. Having taken note of the material on record, in the absence of permission and intimation to the concerned Magistrate, the Investigating Officer ought not to have proceeded against the petitioner. 9. The counsel appearing for the petitioners' also brought to the notice of this Court that when a requisition was given to the Magistrate, only an endorsement is made as 'permitted to investigate as per section 155 of Cr.P.C. on the very request letter itself and the same is not in accordance with law. The concerned Magistrate did not apply his mind and passed any considered order. On the requisition only an endorsement is made and the same is not the permission in the eye of law. Therefore in reality it is not permission at all and the prosecution has not satisfied the Court that mandatory requirements are complied before proceeding with the investigation in the matter. Legal aspect has not been complied and the same has been over looked by the Court below while ordering for registering the criminal case against the petitioners' herein. Looking to these materials it goes to show that it is the abuse of process of Court to continue the proceedings. Not only it is wasting of valuable time and energy of the Court. Looking to these materials it goes to show that it is the abuse of process of Court to continue the proceedings. Not only it is wasting of valuable time and energy of the Court. Even if the trial is proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the matter. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.273/2018 of Gangavathi Police Station, is quashed. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.