Mr. Devendrappa, S/O Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5478 Kant

                             -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                             BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8976/2021

BETWEEN

Mr. Devendrappa
S/o. Gangamma
Age 45 years
Occ: Politician/M.P. Ballari
R/o. Door No.74, I Ward,
Arashikeri, Harapanahalli Taluk,
Ballari District 583 125.
                                                    ...PETITIONER
(By Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, Adv.)

AND

1.    State of Karnataka
      Ballari Gandhi Nagar Police Station,
      Represented by the State Public Prosecutor,
      High Court Building,
      Dharward 580 001.

2.    Kiran Kumar
      Environmental Engineer
      Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
      D.C. Compound,
      Ballari 583101.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. R. D. Renukaradhya, HCGP)

      This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to quash the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari, in C.C.No.1334/2020
                               -2-


thereby taking cognizance for the offence punishable under
Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act insofar as
petitioner is concerned.

      This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made
the following:

                             ORDER

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioner who is accused no.1 in proceedings

pending before the trial Court in C.C.No.1334/2020 has

sought to challenge the order of 23.10.2020 taking

cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 127-A

of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the

R.P.Act").

3. It is made out from the records that information

regarding commission of offence has been made out to the

Station House Officer by the Officer of the Flying Squad who

is the authority under the supervision of the Election

Commission. Pursuant to such information, FIR came to be

registered as regards the offence under Section 127-A of

the R.P.Act.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the

proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that

there is violation of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. insofar as for

the purpose of investigating the non-cognizable offence, the

order of the Magistrate will have to be taken which is absent

in the present case and that the permission must be sought

for by reference of the informant to the Magistrate in terms

of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and in the present case,

permission is sought for by the Station House Officer, on

which the learned Magistrate has endorsed "Permitted"

which is illegal.

5. It is further submitted that it is the settled legal

position that there has to be application of mind by the

Magistrate by passing a separate order and mere

endorsement of the word "permitted" is not in accordance

with law.

6. The admitted facts are that the offence under

Section 127-A of the R.P.Act is Non-cognizable in terms of

Part-II of the Schedule to Cr.P.C. Insofar as the

requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. where the matter

relates to non-cognizable offence, the informant is to be

referred to the Magistrate. In the present case, permission

has been sought for by the Station House Officer and such

permission sought for is not in accordance with Section

155(1) of Cr.P.C. and the same has to be set aside. The

endorsement of the word "permitted" by the learned

Magistrate granting permission to investigate is also not a

speaking order and granting of permission to investigate

must be by a reasoned order in terms of the direction of

this Hon'ble Court in Crl.P.101997/2019 disposed off on

10.12.2019.

7. In fact the said judgment referred to above

encapsulates principles which otherwise are settled

principles and merely reiterates the correct procedure to be

followed. It is noticed that pursuant to the cryptic

permission granted, further investigation has been

concluded.

8. In light of the deficiency as noticed above, the

proceedings are quashed reserving liberty to the authority

to initiate action if permissible under law insofar as the

offence which is the subject matter of the information

furnished to the police on 05.04.2019.

9. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP