Karnataka High Court
Mr. Ganesh vs Director General And Inspector ... on 15 February, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION No.5138/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. GANESH
S/O RAGHAV SALIAN, AGED ABOUT 30,
R/AT R B NIVAS, NEAR MALARAYA TEMPLE,
URVA CHILIMBI,
MANGALORE 575006
2 . ALWIN RICHARD
S/O SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 44,
SHRISHTI NIVAS, HOIGE BAIL,
MANGALORE 575006.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.AKASH B. SHETTY, ADVOCATE - (P.H.))
AND:
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 01
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01.
3. STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
2
DEPARTMENT OF HOME CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY URVA PS, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 56001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. RAHITH, HCGP., - (P.H.))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.0028/2020 DTD 25.05.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD JMFC
COURT, MANGALORE CITY, D.K. VIDE ANNX-A AND
CHARGE SHEET NO.47/2020 DTD 04.07.2020 BEFORE THE
3RD JMFC., COURT MANGALORE CITY D.K. VIDE ANNX-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2
(Petitioner Nos.1 and 2) under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.28/2020 dated
25.5.2020 before the III JMFC., Court Mangalore City,
D.K. at Annexure-A and charge sheet No.47/2020
dated 04.07.2020 before III JMFC., Court Mangalore
City, D.K. at Annexure-B for the offence punishable
under Section 78 (6) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for
short 'K.P. Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the
respondents.
3. The case of the prosecution is that suo motu
complaint has been registered by the Urva Police
Station, Mangaluru in Crime No.28/2020 for the offence
punishable under Section 78(VI) of the Act alleging that
they received the credible information that petitioners
are playing gambling in respect of T-20 cricket match
against West Indies. After receiving the information
from the Police Officer, CCB, the Police registered NCR
and obtained permission from the learned Magistrate
and later registered FIR and filed the charge sheet. The
same is under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
mainly argued the matter on the ground that the
offence alleged against the petitioners is non
cognizable offence and without obtaining permission
under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., FIR has been registered
and charge sheet has been filed. Though the request
was made to the learned Magistrate, the learned
Magistrate has not applied his mind except signing on
the requisition and therefore, he has contended that
permission accorded is not in accordance with law.
Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings.
He has relied upon catena of judgments in this regard.
5. Learned HCGP., objected to the same.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
7. Especially when the requisition made by the
police officer after receipt of the information from CCB
Police Mangaluru, NCR case is said to be registered
and in the said NCR No.260, the information sent to the
learned Magistrate seeking permission of the learned
Magistrate for registering the case and accord the
permission under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. The learned
Magistrate has only affixed his signature with date on
the request made by the police and absolutely there is
no order passed by the learned Magistrate according
permission by applying his mind and satisfying himself
regarding commission of non cognizable offence.
8. This Court in W.P. Nos.42073-42075
disposed of on 03.10.2018 has referred the case of
Praveen Basavanappa Shivalli Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2017(1) AKR 461 and
quashed the proceedings. Admittedly, in this case,
learned Magistrate without application of his mind, has
not even mentioned as 'permitted', but just affixed his
signature. Based upon the same, the police registered
the case and filed the charge sheet which is not
sustainable and it appears, no permission was granted
by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, criminal
proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained
9. Hence, writ petition is hereby allowed and
proceedings initiated against petitioner in crime
No.28/2020 dated 25.5.2020 before the III JMFC.,
Court Mangalore City, D.K. at Annexure-A and charge
sheet No.47/2020 dated 4.7.2020 before the III JMFC.,
Court Mangalore City, D.K. at Annexure - B are hereby
quashed. The Article/s seized by the Police in this case
is to be confiscated to the State.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BS
