Karnataka High Court
Anjeenayya vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2812
CRL.P No. 200218 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200218 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
SRI ANJEENAYYA S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O MALIYABAD VILLAGE, RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by KHAJAAMEEN THROUGH SADAR BAZAR POLICE STATION,
L MALAGHAN REPT. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI BENCH DIST. KALABURAGI-585103.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. MD. FASIYUDDIN S/O NOT KNOWN
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR,
SADAR BAZAR POLICE STATION, RAICHUR,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR 584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2812
CRL.P No. 200218 of 2024
QUASH PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE
IN CC NO.1320/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II, AT RAICHUR, REGISTERED ON THE
CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SADAR
BAZAR POLICE STATION, BASED ON THE COMPLAINT /
INFORMATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE
COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The short point that arise for consideration in
this petition is whether the investigating officer had not
taken the permission of the learned Magistrate under
Section 155 of Cr.P.C., or whether such permission taken
by him do not conform to the requirements of Section 155
of Cr.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
13.01.2021 at about 3.50 p.m. the Police Inspector of
Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur came to the police
station along with the seized articles, panchanama and the
accused; and lodged the complaint stating that at about
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2812
2.00 p.m. he had received the credible information that
game of gambling is played near Mahila Samaj and
therefore he secured panchas and went to the spot and
found that the accused was engaged on the gambling and
seeing the police inspector, except accused No.1, all
others ran away from the spot. The accused/petitioner
was taken to the custody and along with materials found
at the spot, mahazar was prepared and then came to the
police station and handed over the seized articles,
mahazar etc., to the SHO along with the complaint.
Thereafter, the SHO registered the case in NC No.2/2021
for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P.Act
and after obtaining the permission of the learned
Magistrate for investigation, lodged the charge sheet.
4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that when a non cognizable offence is
alleged, it is necessary that the investigating officer
obtains the permission of the Magistrate to investigate.
Such permission to investigate require application of mind
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2812
by the magistrate. The requirement of law is as stated by
this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi
V/s The State of Karnataka1. In the said judgment,
this Court has stated as below:
"Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall
endorse on the report whether the same has been
received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate
has to specify in his order the rank and designation of
the police officer or the police officer by whom the
investigation shall be conducted. Considering the
mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of
Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka
Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down
the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial
Magistrate working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter
making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police
requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in
the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2)
of Cr.P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to
the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an
endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by
post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before
him with a separate order sheet. No order should be
2020 (1) KCCR 371
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2812
passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet
should be continued for further proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional
Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of
the police station has referred the informant to him with
such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the
contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind
and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be
investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit
case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made
in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective
satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police
officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a
finding to that effect permitting the police officer to
investigate the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting
the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and
designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate
the case, who shall be other than informant or the
complainant."
5. The records reveal that a single line order is
passed by the learned Magistrate permitting the
investigating officer to investigate the matter by way of an
endorsement on the application by the magistrate. There
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2812
is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate
had applied his mind to the facts of the case while
granting permission to investigate. Therefore, it is evident
that the requirements of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. are not
followed by the investigating officer as well as the Trial
Court. It is relevant to note that when the investigation of
the crime itself is vitiated, the charge sheet filed thereof is
not sustainable in law. Consequently, the petition
deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
The charge sheet filed by the investigating officer in
CC No.1320/2021 is hereby quashed.
The investigating officer is at liberty to take a valid
permission from the concerned Magistrate and filed the
charge sheet if he advised so.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
CT:PK
