Karnataka High Court
Ravindragouda S/O Mallanagouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 3 January, 2023
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201346/2022
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRAGOUDA
S/O MALLANAGOUDA MALIPATIL
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NEAR BASANNA TEMPLE, PATEL WADI,
YADGIRI-585 201
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE YADGIRI TOWN P.S
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585102
2. NISAR AHMED
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: FLYING SQUAD-IV
YADGIRI, R/O YADGIRI-585201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL
PETITION THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS DT. 13.08.2020
PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.104/2020 (ARISING OUT
OF YADGIRI PS. CRIME NO.107/2018) BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, COURT YADGIRI FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171 (E) AND
171 (H) IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING
THEREFROM AND THERETO.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING HEARING:
ORDER
Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"Wherefore, on looking into all the above
mention grounds amongst others, the
petitioner most respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this
criminal petition thereby quash the order of
taking cognizance and issue of process dt.
13.08.2020 passed in criminal case
No.104/2020 (arising out of Yadgiri p.s. crime
No.107/2018) by the Hon'ble Senior Civil
Judge and CJM Court Yadgiri for the offence
punishable under Sections 171 (E) and 171 (H)
IPC and all further proceedings arising
therefrom and thereto."
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of
the petition are as under:-
Respondent No.2, Sri Nisar Ahmed, aged about 42
years working as Junior Engineer and Election Officer filed
a report with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yadgiri on
21.04.2018 stating that when he was on surveillance duty
for the norms imposed at the time of election, at about
6.00 a.m., he noticed that Sri A.B.Malakareddy, a
candidate from Congress party violated the guidelines and
the norms imposed by the Chief Election Commissioner
and when the complainant and the others followed them,
at about 12.00 noon, Sri A.B.Malakareddy, has donated
Rs.100/- to a lady and one among followers thrown
Rs.10/- currency notes and thereby committed the offence
punishable under Section 171-E and 171-H of IPC.
4. The said complaint was received by the Sub-
Inspector of Police and forwarded to the Magistrate for
obtaining necessary permission from the Magistrate to
proceed with the registration of the case and investigation
of the case. On receipt of such letter/requisition from the
Sub-Inspector Of Police, learned Magistrate endorsed the
word 'permitted' on 21.04.2018 and thereafter the police
have registered a case in Crime No.107/2018 dated
21.04.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections
171(E) and 171(H) of IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner is
before this Court with aforesaid prayer.
6. Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has
contended that there is clear violation of the mandatory
provisions by the magistrate permitting Yadgiri Town Police
to register a case and sought for allowing the petition. He
relied on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this
Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs.
State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contended that the endorsement made 'permitted'
by learned jurisdictional Magistrate on 21.04.2021 is
sufficient compliance of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., and
therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. In the case of Vaggeppa (supra) in
paragraph-21 it has been held as under:
"21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO
of Kagwad police station received a complaint from
PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition
to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission
to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the
K.P.Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is
seen that the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has
made an endorsement on the requisition which
reads as follows:-
"Perused materials. Permitted
Sd/-"
10. Admittedly learned Magistrate did not follow
the guidelines issued by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
Court in Vaggeppa's case as referred to supra.
11. Mere endorsing the word 'permitted' would not
be sufficient compliance of Section 155 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, initiation of the proceedings registering the
case and further investigation of the case for non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 155 (d) (2) of
Cr.P.C., requires to be quashed.
12. Having said thus, since the offence alleged is
non-cognizable offence, the complainant would be left with
remediless. Hence, Investigating Agency is at liberty to
obtain necessary permission and proceed with complaint in
accordance with law.
13. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Further proceedings in Criminal Case No.104/2020
(arising out of Yadgiri P.S. Crime No.107/2018) by the
Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court Yadgiri for the
offence punishable under Sections 171(E) and 171(H) of
IPC is quashed.
This would not deter the investigating agency to
follow the mandatory provisions as contended in Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C., and if a case is made out, proceed with
the same, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
