Karnataka High Court
Lakshmangouda Punagouda Patil vs The State By Ankali Police Station on 9 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRL.P NO 101855 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. LAKSHMANGOUDA PUNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 54 YEARS,R/O. BHOJ VILLAGE,
TQ. CHIKODI,DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
2. RAVINDRA CHANDRASHEKAR PATTANSHETTI
AGE. 51 YEARS,R/O. M.K.HUBLI,DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE BY ANKALI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,DHARWAD.
2. SANJIV M ARAKERI,
OCC. ASST. DIRECTOR FISHERIES
CHIKODI,DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND CHARGE -SHEET IN
CRIME NO.0131/2014 DATED 19.08.2014 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 171(E) AND 188 OF IPC, SECTION 98 OF
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT AND SECTION 123 OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1950, 1951, 1989 IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE PETITIONER NAMED ABOVE.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C.No.755/2014 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 171 (E) and 188 of
IPC and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act and section
123 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, 1951, 1989.
2. Heard Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the
respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the issue involved in the present criminal petition stands
covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench
of this court in Crl.P.No.102458 of 2017 disposed of on
17/2/2020 wherein the co-ordinate bench has held as
follows:
"2. The offences alleged under Section
171-E of IPC and 123(1) of the Act are
non-cognizable offences as such it is
required that permission of the
jurisdictional Magistrate under Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C. is taken before
investigation. Hence, a note was sent to
the jurisdictional Magistrate on
20.02.2016 seeking for such permission.
Jurisdictional magistrate on 20.4.2016
returned the note with an endorsement
"permitted".
3. The petitioner is before this Court
contending that there is no application of
mind by the learned Magistrate. The
endorsement "permitted" is made in a
perfunctory manner and would not amount
to permission in terms of Section 155(2)
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings
which have been initiated by the SHO in
furtherance of the endorsement is without
jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned HCGP opposes the grant of
the above prayer on the ground that
necessary permission has been obtained
from jurisdictional Magistrate and in the
permission letter sent by the Police to
Magistrate, the Magistrate has endorsed
the same as "permitted" and therefore,
there is no violation as alleged by the
petitioner and the proceedings can
continue.
5. Heard Sri. Shivaraj Ballolli., learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned
HCGP and perused the records.
6. The question that would arise for
determination is if in the present facts and
circumstances the mandatory permission
as required under Section 155(2) for the
purpose of initiating investigation and the
consequent steps taken thereon, has been
obtained.
7. A perusal of Sections 155(1) and (2)
of Cr.P.C. would indicate that whenever
there is a non cognizable offence, which is
to be investigated, it is the duty of the
concerned Police Officer to enter the
details of the same in the Station House
Diary, and send the information to the
concerned Magistrate under Section
155(1) of the Cr.P.C. and in terms of
Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. permission
has to be obtained from the jurisdictional
Magistrate to initiate the investigation
therein and or the proceedings against the
accused therein.
8. The contention of the learned HCGP
that there is a valid permission which has
been obtained is devoid of merits. A
perusal of the so called permission would
only indicate the words "permitted", the
same does not indicate any application of
mind by the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Before permitting investigation, the
jurisdictional Magistrate would have to
apply his mind to the facts and
circumstances and it is only after such
application of mind that the order can be
passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate
permitting the investigation. The
application of mind would have to be
gathered from the order passed by the
jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of
Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., which is to
be in sufficient detail.
9. From the records, it is seen that the
jurisdictional Magistrate used the word
"permitted", the same does not in any
manner establish the application of mind
by the jurisdictional Magistrate and such
an endorsement is made in a perfunctory
manner. It would therefore not qualify to
be permission as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. More so,
when the investigation is that of a criminal
offence, which could result in prosecution.
10. A perusal of the record available
would indicate that no such permission
from the jurisdictional Magistrate has been
obtained. Therefore, there being a
substantive violation of the mandatory
procedural law. The proceedings cannot be
continued against the petitioner herein.
10. In view of the above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in Crime No.81/2016 on the file
of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi
are hereby quashed;
(iii) Liberty is however reserved to the
jurisdictional police to obtain necessary
permission from the jurisdictional
Magistrate and initiate the investigation as
regards the petitioner in accordance with
law.
In terms of the above direction, the
petition is disposed of."
4. The learned HCGP would not dispute the position.
5. In the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate
bench covering the subject criminal petition and all its fours, the
following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.755/2014 pending before the
Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chikkodi stands quashed qua
the petitioners.
SD
JUDGE
Vb/-
