Karnataka High Court
Sandeep S C vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2023
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
CRL.P No. 1909 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1909 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SANDEEP S C
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL,
OPPOSITE LAKKAMMA COMPOUND,
JAIL ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA -577201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DODDAPETE POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Digitally
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
SUDHA S
BENGALURU-560001.
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
2. MR SHANKAR S K
AGED 40 YEARS,
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
VINOBA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA -577 207.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
CRL.P No. 1909 of 2023
CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN
C.C.NO.1427/2019 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.0166/2019 OF
VINOBHA NAGARA POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF
COURT OF JMFC III SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.1427/2019 registered by Vinobhanagar police Station,
Shivamogga in Crime No.166/2019, pending on the file of the
JMFC III at Shivamogga, for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
2. Heard Sri.Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for
respondent-State.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on the suomoto
complaint registered by the Vinobhanagar police station, the
CRL.P No. 1909 of 2023
charge sheet was filed against the petitioner showing him as
accused No.4.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that initially, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and based
upon the confessional statement of co-accused, his name was
implicated in the charge sheet. The FIR and the charge sheet
indicate that the initial information received by the Police is
related to a non-cognizable offence. The first information is
received by the Station House Officer from one police inspector
by name Sri.Shankar S.K. But the Police Inspector has not
approached the Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of
Cr.P.C. Even, the Officer who received the information has also
not approached the Court of Magistrate to seek permission for
investigation. But the constable carried the Requisition on
28.10.2019 and obtained permission. The trial Court without
applying its mind ordered that 'perused, satisfied and
permitted'. Therefore, the case is not sustainable under law in
view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
Dharwad Bench in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi
(Jangalagi) Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR
2020 KAR 630.
CRL.P No. 1909 of 2023
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent-State. Perused the material on record.
6. Though, the learned HCGP is objected for the same
and contended that police obtained permission and registered
the FIR. Therefore, the name of the petitioner is added as
additional accused. Therefore, there is no flaw in the FIR.
7. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, as per the requisition made by the police dated
28.10.2019 which reveals that as per the direction of the
I.G.P., Shivamogga, he got information that some persons were
playing gambling. According to the information forwarded to
the Police Inspector by name Sri.S.K.Shankar, crime section,
O/o IGPER, Davangere, in turn, he has given information to the
ASI. Then, ASI send the Requisition to the Magistrate and
where the Magistrate permitted to take action against the
accused. Subsequently, the police raided the spot on
24.10.2019 and seized cash and other materials. Subsequently,
the FIR has been registered and charge sheet has been filed. In
the FIR, the petitioner's name was not mentioned.
CRL.P No. 1909 of 2023
Subsequently, the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.4
based on the requisition made by the police on 28.10.2019. On
the perusal of the Requisition reveals that the informant is none
other than the Police Inspector and IGP. Both of them have not
forwarded the information to the Magistrate to obtain
permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.,
whereas the IGP has given information to the Police Inspector.
In turn, the Police Inspector is the complainant who has not
approached the Magistrate under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. But
it was referred by the ASI for seeking permission which is
against the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of Dharwad in the
case of Vaggeppa as stated supra. That apart, even the
Magistrate also without applying his mind ordered that
'perused, satisfied and permitted'. Even in the case of
Vaggeppa (supra) categorically stated that how to deal with
the matter and information received for the purpose of granting
permission. Such being the case, the order of the Magistrate
that 'perused, satisfied and permitted' is not sustainable under
law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-
accused No.4 in C.C.No.1427/2019, cannot be sustainable
under the law. Hence, it is liable is to be quashed.
CRL.P No. 1909 of 2023
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The criminal proceedings against petitioner-accused No.4
9 in C.C.No.1427/2019 registered by Vinobhanagara Police
Station, Shivamogga District in Crime No.166/2019, pending on
the file of the JMFC-III at Shivamogga, for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS
