STATE OF KARNATAKA v. LAKSHMINARAYAN

THE STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SULLIA POLICE STATION SULLIA TQ, D.K. THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) AND:

1. SRI.M.V.VENKAPPA GOWDA, S/O LATE CHIKKAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/AT NORTH BEERAMANGALA, SULLIA KASABA VILLAGE, SULLIA, SULLIA TALUK, D.K-575239

2. SMT.DIVYAPRABHA CHILTHADKA, W/O PARASHURAM CHILTHADKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHILTHADKA HOUSE, GUTHIGARU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574239

3. HEMANATHA SHETTY, S/O K.U.ANTHAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEAR, SOCIAL WORKER, SHETTY NILAYA, KAVUU MUDNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574201 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR

4. DR.RAGHU.B, S/O LATE PIJINA MUGERA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O SHANTHINAGAR HOUSE, 34 NEKKILAY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574201

5. NITHYANANDA MUNDODI, S/O LATE BELLIAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MUNDODY HOUSE, MADAPPPADY VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574239.

6. DHANANJAYA ADPANGAYA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O ADPANGAYA HOUSE, AJJAVARA VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574239. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3-R6, R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

07.04.2016 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.5037/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., D.K., MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P. AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER These two petitions are by the State challenging the common order dated 07.04.2016 in Crl.R.P.No.5037/2015 and 5041/2015 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru, sitting at Putturu, D.K, and thereby setting aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 03.04.2014 in CC No.303/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, DK, Mangaluru.

2. In support of the petitions, the State has contended that the Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the material in the charge sheet, which clearly indicates that accused persons formed into unlawful assembly by violating election code of conduct on 30.05.2013, rendered speech by creating disharmony in between two faction of the backward classes out of which one was agitating against the Government for their demands and also surrounded the public office and obstructed Government officials from discharging their functions, who had engaged in the election duty. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR

2.1. The learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the offence alleged fall under Section 155(4) Cr.P.C and as such there was no necessity for securing prior sanction from the Magistrate for investigation. When offence punishable under Section 143 IPC is attracted, there was no bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

2.2 The learned Sessions Court has passed order without providing the opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case at the trial. In the light of the prima facie material placed in the charge sheet the trial Court is justified in taking cognizance and hence the petition.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondents/accused would submits that on

25.03.2013 Tahasildar Sullia Taluka filed a complaint alleging that since 15.03.2013 the family members of the Tamil workers working in the rubber plantation of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation, residing in Sullia and Puttur Taluk were agitating for issue of verification certificate, residence, work security and other - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR facilities. From 20.03.2013 the election code of conduct was in force. Though the said workers promised that they would hold agitations, without violating election code of conduct on 25.03.2013, the accused persons made political and insinuating lectures. Along with them the Tamil workers also joined and surrounded office of the Tahsildar and caused traffic jam and also prevented the officials from discharging the duties and therefore action should to be taken against them.

3.1 Based on the complaint case was registered in Cr.No.75/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 125 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and after investigation charge sheet is filed against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 186 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act. The offence punishable under Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act is non cognizable offence and the investigation ought not to have initiated without taking permission of the Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR There is also bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC without complaint by the concerned public servant. The trial Court failed to take into consideration these aspects, while taking cognizance. Therefore petitioners approached the Sessions Court. After appreciating these aspects, rightly the Sessions Court set aside the order taking cognizance. There are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and pray to dismiss the petitions.

4. Heard arguments and perused the records.

5. That the State has challenged the common order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, setting aside the order dated 03.04.2014 in CC No.303/2014 passed by the trial Court, taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 186 r/w Section - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR 149 IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act. The two main grounds urged are that when the case was registered, though only Section 125 of Representation of Peoples Act was invoked, which is a non-cognizable offence. Charge sheet is filed also for the offence punishable under Section 143, 186 r/w Section 149 IPC and therefore the investigating officer has not committed error in not taking the permission of the trial Court to conduct investigation as required under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The second ground urged is that though Section 186 of IPC fall under the category of contempt of lawful authority of public servants in Chapter-X and as per Section 195 of Cr.P.C, the Courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of such offences except on a complaint filed by the public servant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, in the light of other offences the proceedings is perfectly maintainable.

6. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused, at the first instance, when the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR case was registered, only the provisions of Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act was invoked. The maximum punishment prescribed for the said offence is imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. The first schedule of Cr.P.C deals with classification of offences. Part-I deals with offences under the Indian penal code and part-II deals with classification of offences against other laws. According to this, the offences punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then such offences are classified as non-cognizable. Section 155 of Cr.P.C deals with the procedure to be followed where the information furnished to the police officer in charge of a police station, of the commission of a non-cognizable offence, a police officer is required to enter the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe and refer the informant to the Magistrate. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR

7. In other words, as in case of report of cognizable cases, the officer of in charge of the police station is not empowered to register the case and proceed with the investigation. On the other hand, he is required to enter the substance of the such information in the prescribed register and direct the first informant to approach the Magistrate. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C prohibits the police officer from investigating a non-cognizable case without securing order from the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Section 155(3) of Cr.P.C makes it evident that after the police officer receive such permission from the Magistrate, he may exercise the same power in respect of the investigation as an officer in charge of a police station who may exercise in a cognizable case, except the power to arrest without warrant.

8. Thus, the reading of these provisions makes it amply clear that, when the offence reported is non- cognizable, the police officer in charge of the police station - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR is not empowered to investigate such offence, except with the permission of the Magistrate. Only after which he can proceed with the investigation as in case of a cognizable offence, except the power of arrest. As noted earlier, in the present case, the offence for which case came to be registered is non-cognizable, and therefore, investigating officer had no power to proceed with the investigation, except after securing permission from the Magistrate. Admittedly, the investigating officer has not secured permission from the Magistrate, and as such the investigation and subsequent charge sheet is vitiated. Though subsequently in the charge sheet, the provision of Section 143 of IPC, which is cognizable is pressed into service, at the initial stage of conducting investigation, the investigating officer was not having power and authority to proceed with the investigation without permission from the Magistrate and file charge sheet.

9. Section 195 Cr.P.C deals with procedure to be followed in respect of offences for contempt of lawful - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Section 186 of IPC come under chapter-X which deals with the contempt of lawful authority of public servants. It provides the Court cannot cognizance of such offences except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorized in writing in this behalf. In case of offences for contempt of lawful authority of the public servant, the public servant is required to file complaint in writing. In the present case, though the Tahsildar, who is the public servant has given the first information, it is not in the form of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. For this reason also, the trial Court has erred in taking cognizance. In the light of the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements, the Sessions Court is justified in setting aside the order of the trial Court. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:39342 CRL.RP No. 945 of 2016 C/W CRL.P No. 7813 of 2016 HC-KAR interfere with the same. In the result the petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly the following: ORDER i) The petitions filed by the petitioner/State are dismissed. ii) The common order dated 07.04.2016 in Crl.P.Nos.5037/2015 and 5041/2015 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru sitting at Puttur is hereby confirmed. iii) Office is directed to send back the trial Court and Sessions Court records fourth with along with copy of this order. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30