Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 226 (KAR)

Nithin Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2022-02-16

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 916/2020 on the file of J.M.F.C., IV Court, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(vi) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P. Act'). 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Sri Shivaprakash R. Naik, Police Officer received credible information that the accused persons were indulged in Cricket Betting in car near Bejaibail Poultry Co-operative Society, Mangaluru in respect of IPL Cricket Match. Hence, he gave information to the Mangaluru East Police and in turn, the Mangaluru East Police sent a requisition to the Magistrate seeking permission to register a case and investigate the matter. The learned Magistrate is said to have given permission and accordingly, charge-sheet came to be filed which is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Magistrate without application of mind has endorsed on the requisition as permitted which is against the judgment of this Court and also the Magistrate has not applied his mind while granting permission which cannot be considered as valid permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, prayed for quashing the proceedings. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader objected for the same. 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, admittedly, the requisition dated 29.03.2019 has been forwarded to the learned Magistrate and the same was endorsed by learned Magistrate as permitted at 9.30 p.m. on 29.03.2019. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while granting such permission to register the case and investigate the matter. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has issued guidelines in similar case reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi. The guidelines issued by the Court at paragraph No. 20 of the judgment is as under: "20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. The guidelines issued by the Court at paragraph No. 20 of the judgment is as under: "20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C, and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. (ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case. iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition. iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence. v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant." 7. v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant." 7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court has held in various cases that if the Magistrate made an endorsement as 'permitted' and granted permission without application of mind the criminal proceeds in is not sustainable under the law and it cannot be considered as a valid permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 916/2020 on the file of JMFC, IV Court, Mangaluru for the offence punishable under Section 78(1)(a)(vi) of K.P. Act of Mangaluru East Police Station is hereby quashed. The material seized by the Police in this case is ordered to be confiscated to the State.