Karnataka High Court
Veeranna S/O Ningappa Sonnad vs The State Of Karnataka 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 100930 OF 2021
BETWEEN
VEERANNA S/O NINGAPPA SONNAD
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC TRADING AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O GAJENDRAGAD, DIST GADAG-582114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K L PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GAJENDRAGAD
POLICE STATION-582114
NOW REPRESENTED BY S.PP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
2. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA WALI
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: TRADING,
R/O: HIREBAZAAR, GAJENDRAGAD,
DIST:GADAG-582 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN GAJENDRAGAD P.S. CRIME NO.202/2020
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504,
506 OF IPC AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2021
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RON IN
C.C.NO.99/2021 FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER /
ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.99/2021 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the respondent-
State.
3. It is not in disputed that Sections 504 and 506 of IPC
are non-cognizable offences and police could not have
registered the FIR without the permission or approval from
the hands of the Magistrate. In the case at hand, it is
admitted fact that there is no approval from the Magistrate as
required under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C.
4. It is not in dispute that the issue involved in the
present criminal petition is covered by the judgment of the
co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Petition No.3082
of 2007, disposed of on 22/10/2008, wherein the co-ordinate
bench has held as follows:
"7. If the informant desires to seek a
direction to the police officer to investigate
into the non-cognizable offence, at the
hands of the Magistrate, has to lodge a
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., when
the Magistrate would apply his mind to the
averments in the complaint and on being
satisfied that there are reasons to believe
that a non-cognizable offence is committed
may direct investigation by the
jurisdictional Police. In any event, such a
power cannot be exercised either arbitrarily
or capriciously and must result in a judicial
order. The judicial order does not mean
extracting the entire text of the complaint
and the evidence adduced before the
Magistrate. What is required by law is
application of mind to the material on
record, satisfy himself that there is a need
to investigate into the commission of the
non-cognizable offence. It is only thereafter
that the Magistrate under sub-Section (2) of
Section 155 Cr.P.C. directs the Police
Officer to investigate into the non-
cognizable as otherwise, the Police Officer
has no power to investigate into such an
offence. Sub-Section (3 ) of Section 155
Cr.P.C. requires the Police Officer who
receives the order of Magistrate, to exercise
the same power in respect of investigation
(except the power to arrest without
warrant) as the officer may exercise in a
cognizable case.
8. In the light of sub-Section (2) of
Section 155 Cr.P.C., the contention of the
learned S.P.P. that the Police Officer too,
can in his discretion request the Magistrate
for permission to investigate into a non-
cognizable offence, even if the informant
fails to petition the Magistrate for such an
order cannot be countenanced. I am afraid
that such a contention if accepted, would
permit the Police Officer to act according to
his whim and fancy, to pick and choose,
which cannot but be charactersied as
arbitrary or capricious. In my considered
opinion, the Statute does not empower the
Police Officer to requisition, by a written
representation to the Magistrate the grant
of permission to investigate into the non-
cognizable offence.
9. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, as noticed supra, the
representation of the Sub-Inspector of Police
addressed to the J.M.F.C. for permission to
investigate into the non-cognizable offence,
on the complaint filed by the security
guard, is incompetent and one without
jurisidiction. As a consequence, the action
of the judicial Magistrate without noticing
the provision of law, and mechanically
proceeding to accord permission as prayed
for is unsustainable . Even otherwise, a
perusal of the order of the J.M.F.C., which
is in manuscript written over the
representation by the Sub-Inspector of
Police, does not disclose application of
mind. As noticed supra, the J.M.F.C., ought
to have applied his mind to the facts,
satisfied himself as to whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that non-
cognizable offence is committed and having
not done so, the action is both arbitrary
and capricious. On that ground too, the
permission to investigate into the
commission of non-cognizable offence is
illegal.
10. There is considerable force in the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the contents of the
complaint does not disclose the commission
of the offences under Section 504 & 506
I.P.C. by the petitioner. Merely because the
driver of the vehicle came, halted the white
coloured car in front of the premises of
Baldotta and that unknown person orally
abused the family of Baldotta by using bad
language and stated that his Boss was the
petitioner, that by itself and nothing more,
it cannot be said that the petitioner
committed the non-cognizable offences. The
complainant admittedly did not identify the
three persons in the car and despite the
investigation were not apprehended. It is
very strange as to how the investigating
officer filed the charge sheet arraigning the
petitioner as accused of the commission of
offences under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C.
11. In my considered opinion, there
is no material worthwhile disclosing the
commission of the said non-cognizable
offences by the petitioner, and even if the
proceeding is continued there is no
likelyhood of the petitioner being convicted
of the offences alleged, on the basis of the
material on record. This is an eminently fit
case calling for interference, as prosecuting
the petitioner tentamounts to abuse of
process of law.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
The proceedings in C.C.No.857/2006 on
the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C.,
Hospet is quashed."
5. The learned HCGP would not dispute the position.
6. 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.99/2021 pending before
the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron stands quashed qua the
petitioner.
SD
JUDGE
Vb/-
