Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 695 (KAR)

Bhakatha Kuchela v. State Of Karnataka

2022-06-01

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Harisha A.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Yashodha K.P., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.596/2020, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Madduru, Mandya District, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which are non-cognizable offences. 3. In the light of the fact that the said offences were non-cognizable, FIR could not have been registered against the petitioners on such offences, without at the outset seeking permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate under Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. 4. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, no such permission is sought from the Magistrate to register the FIR or conduct investigation. The issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101632/2021 and connected cases, disposed of on 21/9/2021, wherein this Court has held as follows: "4. The main ground of attack by the petitioner in respective petitions is that the offence alleged is under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act. 1963 and it is a non cognizable offence. Before proceeding to investigate the offence the Police ought to have taken prior permission from the concerned court as required under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no compliance of Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that even if the permission from the Magistrate was obtained, it is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. The State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630. Learned HCGP has contended that in some of the cases, the Police have obtained permission of the concerned court and then investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. He further contended that the Police have taken the care to comply mandatory requirements and then only they have proceeded with the matter and ultimately filed the charge sheet. 5. Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli V/s. The State of Karnataka, By Cowl Bazaar Police Station, reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3355 elaborately considered the provisions of Sec. 155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and held that offence under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non cognizable offence. 5. Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Moin Basha Kurnooli V/s. The State of Karnataka, By Cowl Bazaar Police Station, reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3355 elaborately considered the provisions of Sec. 155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and held that offence under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non cognizable offence. Investigation of cases under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act and all further proceedings before the court are vitiated by incurable illegalities or defects for want of permission to investigate the case by the competent Magistrate under sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the Police have taken prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate a non cognizable offence as required under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 7. In crime No.151/2020 of Ranebennur Rural Police station, the FIR came to be registered for the offence under Ss. 78(3) of K.P. Act and Sec. 420 of IPC and charge sheet has been filed only for the offence under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act. Sec. 420 of IPC is invoked only to get over requirement of prior permission of the Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not contain any allegation to attract ingredients of Sec. 420 of IPC. There is nothing in the FIR to indicate that any member of the public had complained of cheating by the petitioner or other accused persons named in the FIR. In the said crime No.151/2020 the Police have not obtained permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is an abuse of process of court. 8. The coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (supra) after elaborately considering Sec. 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C . and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued guidelines to be followed by judicial Magistrate. The said guidelines are as under: i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued guidelines to be followed by judicial Magistrate. The said guidelines are as under: 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 Sec. 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. 9. In Crime No.93/2020 of Guttal Police Station the Police gave requisition seeking permission to investigate a non cognizable offence and the learned Magistrate on the same day has issued intimation as granted permission to investigate a non cognizable offence. 10. In Crime No.25/2020 of Halavagilu police station, Harapanahalli District, Ballari, the Police gave requisition and on the same requisition, the learned Magistrate has made endorsement as "permitted to register the case". 11. On looking to the said aspects, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not followed the guidelines laid down in Vaggeppa case (supra). By looking to the said endorsement, there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate. 11. On looking to the said aspects, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not followed the guidelines laid down in Vaggeppa case (supra). By looking to the said endorsement, there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate. Under the circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the following cases cannot sustain in law and accordingly, they are quashed." 5. In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.596/2020, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Madduru, Mandya District, stand quashed qua the petitioners.