Criminal Petition No. 1722 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. RAVI S/O CHAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION- FARMER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KASABA HOBALI, DADAMAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421. 2. RAVI S S/O TAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION- FARMER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KASABA HOBALI, DADAMAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - -571 421. 3. 4. JAYARAMU S/O DODDAIDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION- FARMER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NELAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. SHIVALINGEGOWDA @ N.S. SHIVALINGEGOWDA, S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION- FARMER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NELAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 5. MALLESHA @ MALLESHA N T S/O THAMMADI KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KASABA HOBALI, NELAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. 6. NAGARAJU S/O CHIKKA KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KASABA HOBALI, NELAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. (BY SRI. VINAY BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2.
Facts
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAVALLI RURAL POLICE STATION, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BENGALURU-560 001. STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO), MALAVALLI RURAL POLICE STATION, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
as held by this Court in the following judgments: i) Sri. Vijayadas and Others Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Crl.P.No.101339/2022 dated 21.04.2022, wherein a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: “Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. 2. On 05.11.2021, the police on receiving the credible information conducted raid near lotus garden Banjar colony, Gokul road, Hubballi, wherein petitioners and other accused who were found playing cards on public street were arrested. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioners-accused for the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act against the petitioners/accused. Taking exception to the same this petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act is non cognizable offence and as such the police before registering the FIR was required to take prior permission of the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, she submits that the registration of the FIR without obtaining prior permission - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 of the learned Magistrate culminating in filing of the charge sheet stands vitiated. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were found playing game of cards and thus have committed the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act is non cognizable and as such the police before registering the FIR was required to obtain prior permission as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The police without obtaining prior permission from the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., registered the FIR and the same is without authority of law. Hence, the registration of the FIR culminating in filing of the charge sheet stands vitiated. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI. THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST PETITIONERS HEREIN BY THE MALAVALLI RURAL P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 87 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 IN CR.NO.101/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “i) To quash the chargesheet filed against Petitioners herein by the Malavalli Rural Police Station for offences under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 in Crime No.101/2024, vide Annexure-C. ii) Also to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of Hon’ble I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Malavalli, in C.C.No.1202/2024, insofar as the Petitioners herein are concerned vide Annexure-D. iii) To pass any other appropriate orders as may be necessary, till the final disposal of this petition, in the interest of equity and justice.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that prior permission under Section 155(2) had not been obtained by the respondent before filing the impugned complaint in relation to the offences punishable under Section 87 of KP Act thereby - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 vitiating the impugned proceedings which deserves to be quashed
Decision
ORDER i) This criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2416/2021 pending on the file of III JMFC Hubli insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused Nos.1,2,19,22, 27,28,29,33,34 and 36 is hereby - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 quashed. iii) In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.” ii) Sri.Vijaykumar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Crl.P.No.101029/2022 dated 05.04.2022, wherein a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: “Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. 2. On 05.11.2021, the police on receiving the credible information conducted raid near lotus garden Banjar colony, Gokul road, Hubballi, wherein petitioners and other accused who were found playing cards on public street were arrested. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner/s accused for the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act against the petitioners/accused. Taking exception to the same this petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act is non cognizable offence and as such the police before registering the FIR was required - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 to take prior permission of the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, she submits that the registration of the FIR without obtaining prior permission of the learned Magistrate culminating in filing of the charge sheet stands vitiated. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were found playing game of cards and thus have committed the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act is non cognizable and as such the police before registering the FIR was required to obtain prior permission as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The police without obtaining prior permission from the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155(2)of Cr.P.C., registered the FIR and the same is without authority of law. Hence, the registration of the FIR culminating in filing of the charge sheet stands vitiated. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 C.C.No.2416/2021 pending on the file of III JMFC Hubli insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused Nos.9, 10, 13 and 14 is hereby quashed. iii) In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.” iii) Sri.Manjunatha and Others Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Crl.P.No.6560/2022 dated 14.09.2022, wherein a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4325/2021, pending on the file of learned Addl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri, Tumakuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 2. Heard Sri G.S.Balagangadhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and t h e learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 3. Admittedly the offence that is held against the petitioners i.e., the one punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act is a non-cognizable offence and for a non- congnizable offence, under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., the permission of learned Magistrate is imperative for registration of FIR and conducting of investigation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent on instructions and perusal of the records would submit that there was no such permission sought for nor passed by the learned Magistrate and the crime is registered dehorse any such permission. Therefore, the very act of registration of the crime against the petitioners without the permission of learned Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. would run foul of plethora of judgments rendered by this Court, one of which is in the judgment rendered by a 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: that even “4. The main ground of attack by the petitioner in respective petitions is that the offence alleged is under Section 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 Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended the Magistrate was obtained, it is not in accordance with the guidelines 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 contend 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. the permission issued from if 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 Section 155 (2) and 155(3) of Karnataka Police Act and held that offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non cognizable offence. Investigation of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 cases under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act and all further proceedings before the court are vitiated by incurable illegalities or defects to investigate the case by the competent Magistrate under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for want of permission 6. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, taken prior to permission investigate a non cognizable offence as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. jurisdictional Magistrate the Police have from the 7. In crime No.151/2020 of Ranebennur Rural Police station, the FIR came to be registered for the offence under Sections 78(3) of K.P. Act and Section 420 of IPC and charge sheet has been filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. Section 420 of IPC is invoked only to get over requirement of prior permission of the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not contain any allegation to attract ingredients of Section 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 Section 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 Section 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. 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 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 is submitted by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 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 the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred to him with such requisition. informant the to 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 is no the said endorsement, application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate. initiated Under the circumstances, the proceedings there to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 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.4325/2021, pending on the file of learned Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, Tumakuru District, stand quashed.” 3. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that as can be seen from the material on record, the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 87 of the KP Act, being non cognizable offences in respect of which necessary permission was not obtained and as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 4. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6880 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2025 ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1202/2024 on the file I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Malavalli, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100