R.AKHANDA SRINIVASA MURTHY v. RESERVED FOR ORDERS

Legal Reasoning

petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Murthy D. Naik appearing for the petitioners in both these cases would contend that the proceedings are vitiated on several circumstances. He would project that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. bears no application of mind and the informant has not travelled to the Court of the learned Magistrate seeking permission, but it is the Station House Officer who seeks permission. The ingredients even if they are taken on their face value would not amount to an offence under Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Act. He would seek to place reliance upon the following judgments: (1) ANAND SINGH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Criminal Petition No.3082 of 2007; (2) B.S.YEDIYURAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2020 SCC OnLine Kar.1540; (3) PRAKASH B.HUKKERI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Criminal Petition No.200722 of 2022; (4) VIJESH PILLAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - Writ Petition No.11186 of 2023; 7 (5) PRAKASH RAJ @ PRAKASH RAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal Petition No.2394 of 2020; (6) JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal Petition No.5488 of 2023.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that it is not mandatory that the informant alone should go to the Magistrate seeking permission. This Court in VIJESH PILLAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, has considered this issue and has so held. He would further contend that ingredients of the offences are prima facie met. Therefore, it is a matter that has to be tried, since charge sheet is already filed. He would seek dismissal of the petitions.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2993 of 2024 is the owner of the premises in 1 2023 SCC OnLine Kar. 32 8 which certain materials bearing the sticker of accused No.2, the petitioner in the companion petition Crl.P.No.1369 of 2024, who has contested in the legislative assembly election were found. The offences alleged against these petitioners while registering the crime was the ones punishable under Sections 171E, 171F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Act. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice gist of the complaint. The gist of the complaint as obtaining in column No.10 of the FIR in Crime No.107 of 2023 reads as follows: “10. ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï ¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV E¯ÁSÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, PÉ.Cgï ªÀÈvÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, zÀÆj£À°è w½¹zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ, vÁ£ÀÄ 2023 gÀ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæ, £ÀA-159 gÀ°è J¥sï.J¸ï.n vÀAqÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05/04/2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 UÀAmÉ 5 ¤«ÄµÀzÀ ªÉüÉUÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÀAmÉÆæïï gÀÆA ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀzÀ DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï zÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆAzÀgÀ°è ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ G®èAX¹ 2023 gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀiÁ»w §AzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ, vÁ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÀAqÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¥Éưøï C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV, Dgï.n.£ÀUÀgÀzÀ DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ²æà ®Qëöäà ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ ¤¯AiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ªÁ¸À«®èzÀ £É®ªÀĺÀr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÁ®ß°è 1). ¨ÁèPï §qïð PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¼À¢ §tÚ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 140 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ; 2) ¦æ«¯ÉÃeï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤Ã° §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 8 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 3). J£ï-qÀÄgÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉA¥ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¥ÀÄà «Ä²ævÀ §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 5 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 4) AiÀiÁð°¸À£ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¹gÀÄ §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 13 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 5) ²æà CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸ï ªÀÄÆvÀgï JA.J¯ï.J ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ, gÀªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀavÀæ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ 65 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀÄ ¸ÉÃj, MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ gÉÆûvï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV, EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ JAJ¯ïJ DVgÀĪÀ ²æà CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð gÀªÀgÀ 9 ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV ¸ÀzÀj PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß 2023 gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹, ¸ÀzÀj ²æà gÉÆûvï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æ CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ oÁuÁ J£ï ¹ Dgï £ÀA.88/2023£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå 32 J¹JªÀiïJªÀiï WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” The crux of the complaint was that in the premises of accused No.1 certain cartons of pressure cookers were found totally numbering 231 in which sticker of accused No.2 was found. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows: “17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ 2023£Éà ¸Á°£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ°PÉò£ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæ – 159 zÀÀ°è ¥ÉèöʬÄAUï ¸ÁÌ÷éqï C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉèöʬÄAUï ¸ÁÌ÷éqï vÀAqÀzÀ ¸ÀºÀ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë- 1 & ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀAeÉ 05.05 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gï- 9880143163 gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr, Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆAzÀgÀ°è ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ G®èAX¹ 2023gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ vÉgÀ¼ÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÀÝ ¸ÁQë-1 & ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ»wUÀ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV, Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀzÀ DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ïgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ²æà ®Qëöä ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ ¤®AiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ªÁ¸À«®èzÀ £É®ªÀĺÀr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É zsÁ½ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÁ®ß°è 1). ¨ÁèPï §qïð PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¼À¢ §tÚ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 140 PÀÄPÀÌgïUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2) ¦æ«¯ÉÃeï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤Ã° §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 8 PÀÄPÀÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, 3) J£ï-qÀÄgÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉA¥ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¥ÀÄà «Ä²ævÀ §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 5 PÀÄPÀÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, 4) AiÀiÁð°¸À£ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¹gÀÄ §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 13 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 5) ²æà CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸ï ªÀÄÆwð JA.J¯ï.J ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ, gÀªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀavÀæ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ 65 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj, MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹QzÀÄÝ, DUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 & ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èzÀÝ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV, EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ°PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ JAJ¯ïJ 10 DVgÀĪÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. F jÃwAiÀiÁV ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÉà ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ 2023gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ²PÁëºÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ” The issue now would be whether the ingredients necessary for laying down an offence against the accused under Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC or Section 133 of the Act are met or otherwise. Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC read as follows: “171-E. Punishment for bribery.—Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only. Explanation.—“Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision. 171-F. Punishment influence or personation at an election.—Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” for undue 11 Section 171-E punishes a person who commits bribery during elections. Bribery is defined under Section 171-B. Section 171-B reads as follows: “171-B. Bribery.—(1) Whoever— (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.” Section 171-B mandates that a person who gives a gratification with an object of inducing him or any other person to exercise electoral right in favour of a particular person commits the offence 12 of bribery. Any person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain gratification would become open to punishment for the said offence. The other offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 171F. Section 171F must have its ingredients as obtaining under Section 171C & D of the IPC. Section 171C deals with undue influence at the elections and Section 171D deals with personation at elections.

8. A perusal at the contents obtaining in the complaint does not meet the ingredients necessary to bring home the offences as alleged. The interpretation of this need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court considering an identical circumstance of influencing voters during elections, albeit in a different way, in the case of JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA2, has held as follows: “…. …. ….

7. The incident that led to registration of crime, is as narrated hereinabove, and would not require any reiteration, as it is a solitary incident of speaking in a public gathering. The allegation is threatening or wooing the voters. A complaint comes to be registered by the flying squad team of election commission on 09-05-2023. Since the entire issue has sprung 2 2023 SCC OnLine Kar. 1376 13 from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint which reads as follows: 14 The complaint is for the offence punishable under Section 171F of the IPC. Section 17 IF reads as follows: “171.-F. Punishment influence or personation at an election.—Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” for undue Section 171F punishes those who would commit the offence of influence or personation at an election with imprisonment, which may extend to a term of one year. Section 15 171F requires two ingredients to be present viz., undue influence or personation at an election. Undue influence and personation, are defined under Sections 171Cand 171D. They read as follows: “171-C. Undue influence at elections.— (1) Who ever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), whoever— (a) (b) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1). (3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section. 171-D. Personation at elections.—Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his own name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence of personation at an election: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has been authorised to vote as proxy for an elector under any law for the time being in force insofar as he votes as a proxy for such elector.” 16 Whoever would voluntarily interfere or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence and whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of other person, living or dead is said to be guilty of offence of personation in the elections. What is laid against the petitioner is Section 17 IF of the IPC. If the complaint is considered on the touchstone of the contents of Sections 171C, 171D and 171F, what would unmistakably emerge, is a reckless registration of crime and a loosely laid offence.

8. The complaint nowhere narrates that the petitioner has unduly interfered with the free exercise of anyone's electoral right, nor does it narrates that the petitioner is guilty of personation as defined under Section 171D of the IPC in the elections. An incident to become an offence under Section 17 IF, the minimum requirement is narration in the complaint of the ingredients of undue influence or personation. The allegation is that Code of Conduct has been violated by the petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on 07-05-2023 by threatening the voters. The complaint is so vague that it would daunt vagueness itself. On such a vague complaint which is loosely made against the petitioner, the crime in Crime No. 89 of 2023 is registered and the damocles sword of crime is left hanging on the petitioner projecting it to be an offence.

9. If on the aforesaid facts further investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner it would become a classic case of permitting investigation in a reckless registration of crime which on the face of it, would become an abuse of the process of law. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS [1992 Supp (1) SC 335.], circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows: “… …. ….

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XTV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent 17 powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 18 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court lays down 7 postulates of interference at the stage of registration of crime. Thefirst postulate is that where the allegations even if they are taken on their face value they would not make out a case against the accused. The fifth postulate is that where the allegations in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable, it would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. The seventh postulate is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is maliciously instituted with a view to spite the accused, such proceedings should be quashed.

10. Three of the aforesaid postulates become completely applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, permitting further proceedings would be putting a premium upon reckless registration of crime against the petitioner. Thus, this should be nipped in the bud by entertaining the petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as the complaint itself nowhere makes out any offence against the petitioner that would become punishable under Section 171F of the IPC. In the light of the issue being answered on the merit of the matter itself, the submission with regard to nonapplication of mind by the Learned Magistrate while granting permission for registration of FIR and on that score matter being remitted back to the Learned Magistrate for re-consideration, would pale into 19 insignificance. Finding no merit in the complaint, the petition deserves to succeed.” If what is found to be necessary ingredients as held in J.P.NADDA being absent in the case at hand, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law.

9. The other issue that is projected by the learned senior counsel is that the informant has not travelled to the doors of the learned Magistrate seeking permission for registration of crime in a non-cognizable offence. He would submit that the provision is clear that it requires only the informant to go to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to register the crime in a non- cognizable offence. The said issue again need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court in VIJESH PILLAI supra has considered the entire spectrum of law and has held as follows: “The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.116 of 2023 by the K.R.Puram Police Station for offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:- 20 The 2nd respondent is the complainant and petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent seeks to register a complaint on 11-03-2023 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has threatened and intimidated the complainant. The complaint is brought before the K.R.Puram Police Station upon which the Station House Officer seeks permission of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru to register a crime under Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation in the light of the fact that Section 506 of the IPC is a non-cognizable offence and for a non-cognizable offence permission of the Magistrate would be imperative under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., The learned Magistrate on receipt of requisition permits the crime to be registered on perusal of requisition. On the crime being registered, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition not on the issue of merit of the matter but on non-application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate granting permission.

3. Heard Sri Satyanarayana S.Chalke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the learned Magistrate has erred on two counts – one, permission granted on a requisition made by the Station House Officer is erroneous as it is the informant who has to go before the learned Magistrate and seek permission. Sub-section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C., permits the to grant permission. Such grant of learned Magistrate permission should be on application of mind. He would contend that the learned Magistrate has just accorded permission without any further observation. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to support the action of the learned Magistrate contending that it is not required for the learned Magistrate to pass an elaborate order while granting permission to register a FIR and seeks dismissal of the petition. 21

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. A complaint comes to be registered before the K.R. Puram Police Station alleging intimidation or threatening the life of the complainant. The complaint reads as follows: “Sub: Complainant against Mr.Vijesh Pillai threatening me to life. With regard to the above mentioned subject I would like to bring to you kind attention that a gentleman from kerla named Vijesh Pillai came to meet me at Zuri Hotel, Bengaluru initially asking me for an interview and told me he wants to meet me and discuss above the same. Last Saturday, I went with family to the hotel I mentioned with my family and these after 5 minutes of police introduction, he said was sent by the party secretary, Mr. Govindan to settle the issue between Hon’ble CM of kerala, his family and as a settlement amount they will provide 301 crores INR to in a weeks time and go absconding. It I do not agree to the same then he will have to look for alternative option like charging false case against me by putting contrabands is my baggage while traveling or will kill me so that all issues will settle down. They will also do harm to my family member to teach me a lesson, the has given me week time to think and decide. leave Bengaluru I hereby request the authorities to please take necessary action to protect me and my family from this threat for life as I have a small son going to school. I humbly prays to your goodself office to provide me with protection to body and life. Kerala police used to provide the same in Kerala when I was there.” (Emphasis added) The complainant when approached K.R.Puram Police Station, a non-cognizable report is made and a requisition is taken to the learned Magistrate to register a crime on such non-cognizable 22 report as the facts would lead to an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. Section 506 of the IPC reads as follows: “506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence life, or with punishable with death or imprisonment imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. The ingredients of criminal intimidation are found in Section 503 of the IPC. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to that person is said to have criminally intimated the victim. Therefore, the complaint did make out certain ingredients of Section 503. Since Section 506 is an offence that is non-cognizable, permission of the Magistrate would be required under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., to register a crime. Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows: “155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.—(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. 23 (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 155 has four parts to it. Sub-section (1) directs that when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he should enter the substance of the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Therefore, what could be gathered from the said provision is that on a non-cognizable offence the informant has to be referred to the learned Magistrate. Sub- section (2) directs that no investigation on a non-cognizable offence can take place without the written order of the Magistrate. Sub-section (4) relates to amalgam of a cognizable and a non-cognizable offence and if it is an amalgam the rigour of Section 155(1) and (2) would lose its significance. The entire issue now revolves around the aforesaid provisions of law. In the case at hand upon receipt of the afore-quoted complaint, the Station House Officer records a non-cognizable report and sends a requisition to the learned Magistrate seeking to register a crime. The learned Magistrate passes the following order: “Perused the requisition seeking permission to register FIR in non-cognizable case. Permitted to register and investigate in accordance with law.” (Emphasis added) requisition and permitted Therefore, the order is perused and permitted. Except saying perused, investigation or registration of FIR, there is no indication of any application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate. This Court in fact that plethora of cases has been emphasizing the Magistrates should not permit registration of FIR by usage of words “permitted”, “perused permitted” or even “permitted registration of FIR”. All these illustrations of granting permission on the face of it suffers from want of application of mind. Permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a frolicsome act on the part of the Magistrate. The Magistrate exercises power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., In doing so, it cannot be that he could pass orders which do not bear a 24 semblance of application of mind. This Court in VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA3 following all the earlier judgments rendered on the issue has held as follows: “3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the Police have no authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the Police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the Police proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed. investigation. Therefore, take up jurisdictional Magistrate and the

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non-cognizable one and therefore, as per Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., the informant PSI ought to have been referred jurisdictional to the Magistrate ought to have passed the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up investigation of the case and these are the mandatory requirements of the provisions under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. which are not followed in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.

8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non- cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO of Police Station in respect of commission of 3 ILR 2020 KAR 630 25 non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. Therefore, necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with investigation and for taking cognizance of non- cognizable offence reads as follows:— the procedure “155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable.”

9. Therefore, when the SHO of the Police Station receives a report regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., stated supra. Unless, the Police Officer is permitted by an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer does not get 26 jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet. …. …. ….

11. This Court of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P. 5934/2009 decided on 20/8/2013 considered the scope of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., has observed in para 5 as follows:— “5. Section 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of an information received by the officer in charge of a police station relating to commission of a non- cognizable offence. According to sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., when an officer in charge of the Police Station receives an information as to the commission of a non- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. According to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., no police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without a order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading of sub- section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO, who receives information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence is only to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is for the informant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek a direction to the police for investigation. If the Magistrate on being approached by the informant, directs investigation, the Police Officer concerned would get jurisdiction to investigate the matter.”

12. This Court in paragraph 6 has further has observed as follows:— “In the case on hand, as noticed supra, upon receipt of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the SHO of Virajpet Police Station registered the same as NCR and submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter, based on which, the Magistrate granted permission. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SHO is without the authority of law and the same is not contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. Therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on such requisition is also without any basis, as such, the investigation carried on by the police and the charge sheet filed thereon are without the authority of law. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, it is open to Respondent No. 2, who is the informant before the police to approach the jurisdictional 27 Magistrate and seek necessary orders as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C.”

13. Therefore, the SHO of the Police Station has no authority of law unless the jurisdictional magistrate permits the Police Officer for investigation of the non-cognizable offence.

14. This Court case of Padubidri Members Lounge v. Director General and Inspector General of Police in W.P. Nos. 42073-75/2018 Decided on 3/10/2012, considered the mandatory provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of CrP.C., where the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:— “6. As per the above provisions, when an Officer- in-charge of the police station receives an information with regard to commission of non-cognizable offence/s, i) he shall enter or caused to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by the said Officer in a prescribed form and ii) refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial.

7. In the instant case, police have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have referred the informant to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., or obtained necessary order as envisaged under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., before embarking upon investigation. Thus, on the face of it, the respondents are seen to have violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C.”

15. Again this Court, in the case of Veeranagouda and others vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No. 102021/2018 decided on 11/1/2019, considered the requirements of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and has held in para 9 as follows:— “The Counsel appearing for the petitioner' 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 28 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. Even if the trial is proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the matter.”

16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non- cognizable offence.

18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non-cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non- cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to 29 consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub- Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’.

19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non-cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:— “INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION *1. Report under Section 154.—(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.

2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

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. 30 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.

21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:— “Perused materials. Permitted Sd/-”

22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence much less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate. 31

23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby quashed as against the petitioner is concerned.” (Emphasis supplied) This has been the law right from 2016 as followed in the afore- quoted judgment. But, the Magistrates have not changed their attitude of passing callous orders of granting permission which sometimes is only a one word order “permitted”. Therefore, the learned Magistrates by their callous action of passing of such orders have generated huge litigation before this Court as petitions are being filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of such orders which grant permission bearing no application of mind. Therefore, the learned Magistrates who pass such orders have contributed/ contributing to the docket explosion before this Court. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrates are contributing to the pendency of such cases in the judiciary itself. It is high time now, that the learned Magistrates should mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions received and then pass appropriate orders. Since no orders are being passed despite repeated orders of this Court of the kind that this Court has directed. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to invoke the power under Section 483 of the Cr.P.C., and direct correction of errors by the learned Magistrates. Section 483 of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows: “483. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates.—Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.” Section 483 directs that every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates to ensure that expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates. Section 483 did fall for interpretation before the 32 Apex Court in plethora of cases. I deem it appropriate to quote a few. The Apex Court in the case of POPULAR MUTHIAH v. STATE4 has held as follows: “24. It is also significant to note that whereas inherent power of a court or a tribunal is generally recognised, such power has been recognised under the Code of Criminal Procedure only in the High Court and not in any other court. The High Court apart from exercising its revisional or inherent power indisputably may also exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in some matters in terms of Section 483 thereof. The High Court, therefore, has a prominent place in the Code of Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis the Court of Session which is also possessed of a revisional power. (Emphasis supplied) jurisdiction The Apex Court holds that the High Court apart from exercising its revisional or inherent power may also exercise its supervisory in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in some cases in terms of Section 483 of the Cr.P.C., The Apex Court again in the case of DHARMESHBHAI VASUDEVBHAI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT5 has held as follows: “12. The High Court, apart from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India, has a duty to exercise Judicial continuous Magistrates in terms of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads as under: superintendence “483. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates.— Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.”

Arguments

2. Heard Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions and Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioners in both these cases are alleged of offences punishable under Section 171-E and 171-F of the IPC and Section 5 133 of the Representation of People Act (‘the Act’ for short). The 2nd respondent is the complainant/Chief of Flying Squad Team. During the elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly which was slated to be held on 10-05-2023 the squad is said to have got some credible information on 05-04-2023 at about 5.05 p.m. from the election control room that some pressure cookers were stored in a building of particular address of Bangalore and they were stored to distribute to the voters is the allegation. On receiving the said information, the 2nd respondent inspects the said premises and found about 231 cookers having the stickers of accused No.2. The owner of the premises is the petitioner in the companion petition. Therefore, both these petitioners are drawn into the web of proceedings. The 2nd respondent, on the said incident, registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.107 of 2023. It is registered after securing permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate as the offences alleged were all non-cognizable. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences and the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence, registers criminal case in C.C.No.638 of 2024 and issues summons 6 to these petitioners. Issuance of summons is what has driven the

Decision

O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed. 49 (ii) The order and the Crime registered on the strength registration stands quashed. the order permitting (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with observations/guidelines laid down in the course of the order. law bearing in mind (iv) The Registry shall circulate this order to all the Magistrates in the State for their guidance and its strict compliance. (v) The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, for compliance with the guidelines laid down in the course of the order.” It is no doubt true that on an earlier occasion in the case of GOPALAKRISHNA M.N. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal Petition No.55 of 2022 decided on 27th September, 2022 this Court had followed the judgment in the case of ANAND SINGH supra and had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the informant is the one who has to travel to the doors of the learned Magistrate seeking permission. But, that was only following the judgment in the case of ANAND SINGH supra. In the subsequent judgment considering the case of ANAND SINGH, co-ordinate Benches of this Court had deviated from the said mandatoriness of the 50 informant himself travelling to the doors of the Magistrate and held that it can be either the informant or the Station House Officer. In that light considering the earlier judgment of this Bench in VIJESH PILLAI supra this Court did hold that either the informant or the Station House Officer can seek permission of the learned Magistrate in a non-cognizable offence. Merely because the informant does not go to the Magistrate to seek permission it would not vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, the contention that the informant has not sought permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate becomes unacceptable. But, that would not mean that the matter should be remitted to the hands of the learned Magistrate or the concerned special Court, in the light of the offence itself not being met in the case at hand. Therefore, permitting further proceedings, despite the aforesaid lacunae in the ingredients for the offence and the procedural aberration, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: (i) Criminal Petitions are allowed. O R D E R 51 (ii) Charge sheet in Crime No.107 of 2023 and proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2024 pending before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) at Bangalore stand quashed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CT:SS