K C Narayana Gowda vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7797 Kant

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2217/2022

BETWEEN:

K C NARAYANA GOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO. BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
NEW KIKKERI ROAD
KAIGONAHALLI
S B HALLI HOBLI
K.R. PETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 577 133
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI NEHRU M.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY K.R.PETE TOWN POLICE STATION
       MANDYA DISTRICT-577 133
       REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BANGALORE 560 001

2.     RAVI KUMAR R
       S/O RANGASWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       ASST ENGINEER
       R/AT NO.20 HLBC
       SUB DIVISION OFFICE
       K.R. PETE TOWN
       20-MANDYA PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION 2019
                                 2


      FST SQUAD -02
      KASABA HOBLI
      K.R.PETE TALUK
      MANDYA DISTRICT 577 133
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R.D. HCGP FOR R1;
    R2-SERVED)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.30792/2021 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.64/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENSES P/U/S 171(F) OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF XLII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGLAURU (SPL.COURT TO DEAL WITH
CRIMINAL CASE RELATED TO SITTING AS WELL FORMER
MPs/MLAs TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE OF KARNATAKA) BY
ALLOWING THIS MEMORANDUM OF CRL.P U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Petitioner has called in question the validity of the

proceedings in C.C.No.30792/2021 arising out of Crime

No.64/2019 filed by respondent - Police for the alleged

offence punishable under Section 171F of IPC pending on

the file of the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

at Bangalore.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the offence of Section 171F being non-cognizable,

investigation could have commenced only after permission

is granted by the Magistrate. It is further submitted that

according to the procedure under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C.,

after entering the substance of information, the informant is

to be referred to the Magistrate and the Magistrate must

apply his mind and grant permission.

3. Attention is drawn to Annexure-G wherein the

police - authorities themselves have sought for permission

for investigation as per the communication dated

21.03.2019 and the Magistrate upon such communication

has endorsed "Perused. Permitted to register a case and to

investigate".

4. It is submitted that the procedure followed by

the police while seeking permission is violative of procedure

under Section 155(1) and permission granted by endorsing

"Perused. Permitted to register a case and to investigate" is

a non-speaking order and is against the settled guidelines

laid down by this Court. Reliance is also placed on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Praveen

Basavanneppa Shivalli vs. State of Karnataka and

others - (2017) 2 KCCR (SN 187) 242.

5. Clearly, the procedure followed by the police as

well as by the Magistrate is not in conformance with law.

At the first instance, once the non-cognizable offence is

made out as in the present case of 171F, the permission to

investigate must be only after reference of the informant to

the Magistrate in terms of the procedure under Section

155(1) of Cr.P.C. and the procedure followed by the police

authorities approaching the Magistrate in seeking

permission as is reflected in Annexure-G is in contravention

of the procedure under Section 155(1). Even otherwise, the

Magistrate while granting permission for investigation must

apply his mind and pass a reasoned order and a mere

endorsement "Perused. Permitted to register a case and to

investigate" clearly does not reflect sufficient application of

mind. Accordingly, the proceedings in its entirety are set

aside.

6. All the proceedings right from the stage of

reference made to the Magistrate is set aside. The matter is

relegated to the stage of information being made to the

Police Authorities. The matter is to be proceeded with in

accordance with law from that stage.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP