Karnataka High Court
Chaithra K P vs State Of Karnataka By Ballari on 15 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102396/2021
BETWEEN
1 . CHAITHRA K. P,
AGE 34 YEARS,
W/O. SURAJ R,
R/A, NO. 43 JHBCS LAYOUT,
NAADHAM, SURASANGAMA ROAD,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
GUBBALALA,
UTTARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560061
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAJWAL P, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALLARI,
RURAL POLICE STATION,
BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI. MAHESH K. P,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. PRABHAKAR,
OCCUPATION: TEACHER,
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
2
NANDI SCHOOL,
BALAGAL VILLAGE,
R/AT KATTA AREA,
KOLLA MOGARU VILLAGE,
SULYA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI FOR HCGP FOR R1 &
SRI ANAND R KOLLI FOR R2 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2018 PASSED IN
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.351/2016 NOW REGISTERED AS CC
NO.533/2018, III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI,
AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.533/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCE U/S 507 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI AND DIRECT HIM TO DROP ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION OR ARISING THERETO, AND
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN
CRIME NO.351/2016 AND ALSO THE FIR IN CRIME NO.351/2016
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
U/S 507 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.533/2018 registered for offences
punishable under Section 507 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Prajwal. P., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for
respondent No.1.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Chief
Administrative Officer of Nandi CBSE school and hostel
found on the facebook profile of Smt.Daisy, a Receptionist, a
video about Nandi hostel uploaded on 21.08.2015. The video
showed some person beating 4 girls and 3 boys and kicking
them. A complaint came to be registered for the offence
punishable under Section 507 of the IPC. The police after
investigation filed a charge sheet in the case at hand for the
offence punishable under Section 507 of IPC including the
offence under Section 66A of the Information and Technology
Act.
4. Two factors are not in dispute in the case at hand,
one is, Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act
stood obliterated by the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Shreya Singhal V.s Union of India, reported in AIR
2015 SC 1523 and the offence punishable under Section
507 is a non-cognizable offence.
5. If the offence punishable under Section 507 of IPC is
a non-cognizable offence, FIR could not have been registered
without at the outset seeking an approval from the hands of
the Magistrate. In the case at hand though approval is
granted by the Magistrate, it is the police who take the
complaint to the Magistrate and seek his approval. The
informant in the case at hand is the Chief Administrative
Officer of the school. Therefore, it was for the informant to go
to the Magistrate and seek his approval. The act of the police
taking the file to the Magistrate and the Magistrate approving
the same are erroneous and contrary to law laid down by
several Co-ordinate benches of this Court. In the case of
Anand Singh v. State of Karnataka, (Crl. P. No.
3082/2007, decided on 22.10.08), this Court has held, "that
under S.155 of Cr. P.C., the police officer has no authority to
approach the Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission
to investigate the case." In Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v.
State of Karnataka, (Crl. P. No. 5934/2009 decided on
20.08.2013), the 2nd respondent - informant, having
submitted a complaint, SHO registered a case and submitted
a requisition to the Magistrate to accord permission to
investigate the matter. With reference to the said requisition,
permission was granted by the Magistrate. Investigation was
made and the charge-sheet was filed. to quash the charge-
sheet and all related proceedings, a criminal petition under
S.482 Cr. P.C. was filed. By noticing that the procedure
adopted by the SHO is without authority of law and holding
that same is not contemplated under S. 155 Cr. P.C. and
that, therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on
such a requisition is also without any basis and as such the
investigation carried and the charge-sheet filed thereon by
the police was held to be without authority of law and the
prosecution launched was quashed.
6. Yet another factor that would vitiate the proceedings
is, the Magistrate grants his approval on 15.05.2016 as could
be seen from a document appended to the petition -
Annexure-D. The complaint is registered by the complainant
on 31.08.2016. If the complaint itself was on 31.08.2016
what was the approval taken on 15.05.2016 remains
unexplained and it transpires that the petitioner was
harassed by the police on the complaint made by the Chief
Administrative Officer. If the complaint itself was on
31.08.2016, the proceedings taken up against the petitioner
on the basis of the approval granted on 15.05.2016 becomes
illegal. It is for the petitioner to initiate such proceedings
against such harassment meted out to her.
7. Insofar as the case at hand is concerned, the same
being covered by plethora of judgments of this Court on all
its fours, the Criminal Petition is allowed. All further
proceedings pending in C.C.No.533/2018 qua the petitioner
stands quashed.
SD
JUDGE
Vb/-
