Karnataka High Court
Prabhuswamy S/O Doddayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:448
CRL.P No. 103686 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103686 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. PRABHUSWAMY S/O DODDAYYA ARAVATAGIMATH,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. NAREGAL HUCHCHIRESHWAR NAGAR,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
2. MANJUNATH S/O VEERAPPA DHARMYATA,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. NAREGAL GUDI STREET,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
3. PRAKASH S/O VEERAPPA PIDAGONDA,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. NAREGAL, GUDI COLONY,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
4. ANAND S/O SHIVAPPA HONAVADA,
E Date:
2024.01.20 AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
16:03:41
+0530
R/O. NAREGAL, GUDI COLONY,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
5. JAGADISH S/O VEERAPPA HONAVADA,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. NAREGAL, GUDI COLONY,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
6. KUMARESH S/O MAHAGUNDAPPA KARAMUDI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. NAREGAL, GEDAGIRI COLONY,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD, DISTRICT. GADAG.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:448
CRL.P No. 103686 of 2023
7. SUNIL S/O SHANKARAO AMBEKAR,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O. NAREGAL, GUDI COLONY,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
8. VEERANNA S/O HULAGAPPA BEVINKATTI,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PERSON,
R/O. NAREGAL, HOSAPETI COLONY,
TALUKA. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
9. SHARANAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA GANGARAGONDA,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O. NAREGAL, GUDI COLONY,
TALUK. GAJENDRAGHAD,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THOUGH NAREGAL POLICE STATION,
GADAG-580011.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RON IN CRIME NO.73/2023 OF
NAREGAL POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 87 OF KARNATAKA POLICE AS AGAINST
PETITIONER NO.1-9/ACCUSED NO.1-9 ARE CONCERNED IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:448
CRL.P No. 103686 of 2023
ORDER
1. On 15.10.2023 a request was sought for by the
police to grant permission to investigate a non-cognizable
offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act.
2. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated
15.10.2023, rejected the said request on the ground that the
police had already conducted a raid and therefore, they could
not seek for permission. Three days thereafter, further a
second requisition was made seeking permission to investigate.
On this requisition, the following endorsement has been made
by the learned Magistrate
'Permitted to Investigate after registering FIR'
3. On the basis of this permission, the investigation an
FIR has been registered, and the investigation is stated have
been taken up.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Magistrate could not have granted permission to
investigate on 18.10.2023, when the learned Magistrate had
already rejected the request on 15.10.2023. He also submits
that the learned Magistrate has committed a serious error in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:448
merely endorsing 'permitted to investigate after registering FIR'
and the said endorsement is in direct contravention of the
judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the
case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi V/s The State Of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 Kar 630.
5. Section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C mandates that in
respect of a non-cognizable offences and a police officer can
take up an investigation only after permission is granted by the
Magistrate. In the instant case, since a raid was conducted and
thereafter, a request was made to investigate, the Magistrate
was justified in rejecting the said request. However, in order to
get over this irregularity, it appears a second requisition has
been made seeking for permission to investigate, and this has
been granted by the Magistrate.
6. Firstly, once permission to investigate has been
refused by the Magistrate, it will not be permissible to the
Magistrate to entertain a second request. Furthermore, an
endorsement that is made permitting the investigation does not
indicate any application of mind. In view of the judgment
referred above in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:448
it is necessary that the judicial order as stated in the above
case is required to be passed by the learned Magistrate.
7. In that view of the matter, the registration of an
FIR against the petitioners cannot be sustained and the same is
accordingly quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
CT:BCK
