Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ratna W/O Shivanand ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6THDAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WP NO 107142 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. RATNA
W/O SHIVANAND BHIMAKKANNAVAR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
COUNCILOR,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HAVERI,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
HAVERI,
TQ AND DIST HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.F V PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
HAVERI,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.
2
2 . MANJUNATH MADHUMALATESH JOSHI
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: PRINTING WORKS,
PRINTING PRESS,
HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, HAVERI,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO:-
A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED:27.05.2016
AND THE FIR DATED:28.05.2016 IN CRIME NO.160/2016,
HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND
B RESPECTIVERLY.
B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:28.05.2016 ON
THE REQUISITION DATED:28.05.2016 OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
HAVERI TO THE EFFECT THAT "PERUSING NC PERMITTED"
VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.36/2017 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. F.V.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.Praveen Uppar, HCGP for respondent-State.
3. The only issued that falls for consideration at the
hands of this Court is whether the procedure followed by
respondent No.1 in registering the FIR is in accordance with
law?
4. The complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent
against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections
504 and 506 of IPC. It is not in dispute that Sections 504 and
506 of IPC are non-cognizable offences. Once the complaint
is registered alleging of non cognizable offences, FIR cannot
be registered without seeking approval from the Magistrate in
terms of Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
5. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
155. Information as to non- cognizable cases
and investigation of such cases.
(1) When information is given to an officer in
charge of a police station of the commission within
the limits of such station of a non- cognizable
offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the
substance of the information in a book to be kept
by such officer in such form as the State
Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer
the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-
cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate
having power to try such case or commit the case
for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may
exercise the same powers in respect of the
investigation (except the power to arrest without
warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station
may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of
which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be
deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding
that the other offences are non- cognizable.
6. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. clearly mandates FIR can be
registered by police office/Investigation Officer only after
obtaining approval from the Magistrate. In the case at hand,
the police office/Investigation Officer registered the FIR
without approval form the Magistrate, which is in violation of
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The action falls foul of the mandate
of the Statute and its interpretation by plethora of judgments
interpreting Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
7. In the light of the illegality going to the root of the
matter, the entire proceedings become a nullity. For the
aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The entire Proceedings in C.C.No.36/2017
pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM.,
Haveri stands quashed.
SD
JUDGE
Vb/-
