Criminal Petition No. 995 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11781 CRL.P No. 995 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 995 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. PRASANNA A A S/O ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEASR, R/AT NO.281, 1ST FLOOR, EWS 2ND STAGE, KHB KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570023. 2. SHIVANNA C/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.1608, 4TH CROSS, HOSAKERI, K R MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570004. 3. PACHAIAH T K S/O KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.88, RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, THONACHI KOPPAL SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570009. 4. KRISHNAPPA B S/O LATE BASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.80, 4TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, T K LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE, MYSORE - 570 009. 5. C. LOKESH S/O LATE K CHANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11781 CRL.P No. 995 of 2025 NO.19, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, NEAR BEDARA KANNAPPA TEMPLE, CHIKKA HARADANA HALLI, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570014. 6. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O ALTE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.260, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, H BLOCK, MYSORE - 570022. 7. SHIVAKUMARASWAMY S/O LATE NAGESHAPPA AGED BOUT 54 YEASR GUNDIPET TALUK, TERAKANAMBU, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571123. 8. M.N. MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.217213, 3RD CROSS, BASAWESHWARA ROAD, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570004. 9. N. SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, NO.221-K-16, 8TH CROSS, KSHETRAIAH ROAD, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570004. 10. NATARAJU K S S/O LATE SHIVA BADAPPA G.C, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.3600, WARD.19, 10TH CROSS, R P ROAD, NANJANAGUDU TALUK AND TOWN, MYSORE-571301.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. AMRUTHESH N.P., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11781 CRL.P No. 995 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUVEMPUNAGARA POLICE STATION, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR CCB OFFICE, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570001 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRITE OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.07.2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS FIR IN CRIME NO.0076/2023, DATED 16.07.2023, (VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND B) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 12, 13, 20, 23, 31, 35, 38, 39 and 40, are sought to be prosecuted under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, alleging - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11781 CRL.P No. 995 of 2025 that, the petitioners were found gambling in recreation club. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. 3. The offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Art are non-cognizable, and before conducting the investigation, the Police were required to obtain an order by the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. On the requisition sent by the police, the learned Magistrate has endorsed the word " permitted". 4. The Co-ordinate Bench of Dharwad High Court in Crl.P.No.101997/2019 disposed of on 10.12.2019, at para-18 has held as follows: "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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11781 CRL.P No. 995 of 2025 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 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 in number of cases, the Jurisdictional hand, 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’." 5. Hence, the endorsement "permitted" is not a valid order as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., since, the same is not supported by any reasons, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11781 CRL.P No. 995 of 2025 ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.4395/2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, at Mysuru, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused herein stands quashed. iii) In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5