Karnataka High Court
Sangappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 27 June, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4378
CRL.P No. 200040 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200040 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SANGAPPA
S/O BASWARAJ SEDIMANI
AGE 43 YEARS
OCCUPATION GOVT TEACHER
R/O VILLAGE HAIBHAVI GOREBAL
TQ LINGSURE
DISTRICT RAICHURE-585 127
2. SABANNA
S/O HANMANTH
AGE 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION GOVERNMENT TEACHER
R/O NO. 5-32 AURAD B
KALABURAGI-585 103
3. JAGANNATH
S/O KASHAPPA SUBEDAR
Digitally signed AGE 45 YEARS
by CHAITHRA A OCCUPATION GOVERNMENT SERVANT
Location: HIGH R/O CHURCH ROAD, KHATVONAGAR
COURT OF UPPER MADDI SHAHABAD
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585 229
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SYED FAYAZUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION BAZAR P.S KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585 103
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4378
CRL.P No. 200040 of 2024
2. SANDEEP
S/O PRAKASH BHARANI
AGE 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION SOCIAL WORKER
R/O NAVRANG CHAL JAGAT CIRCLE
KALABURAGI-585 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. F.M. INAMDAR, HCGP FOR R1;
V/O DATED: 27/06/2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENT
NO. 1 POLICE IN CR. NO. 181/2023 STATION BAZAR PS KALBURGI,
FIR NO. 2662/2023 CC. NO. 8720/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC.
504 OF IPC. PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BEFORE THE PRL JMFC AT
KALABURAGI (ANNEXURE A AND C) TO PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.8720/2023 arising out of Crime No.181/2023 registered
by Station Bazar Police, Kalaburagi, for offences punishable
under Section 504 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned HCGP for the State.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4378
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, issuance
of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
4. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent
No.2/complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners for
offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The police after
receiving the complaint forwarded the request to the learned
Magistrate seeking permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
and subsequently, the police registered the FIR and filed charge
sheet, which is under challenge.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
that the police without obtaining the permission as required
under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. have registered the FIR and
filed the charge sheet. Since the offence alleged is a non-
cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be registered and charge
sheet cannot be filed and therefore, taking cognizance is
unsustainable. Hence, learned counsel prays for quashing of
the same.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that permission
has been accorded by the learned Magistrate on the request
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4378
made by the police and therefore, the criminal proceedings
cannot be quashed.
7. Heard the learned counsel on record, especially with
regard to the request sent by the police seeking permission to
register the FIR and to file the charge sheet. The contents of
the request is read over by the learned HCGP and the learned
counsel for the petitioners and also the order passed by the
learned Magistrate wherein the learned Magistrate has
observed that in order to clarify the contents of the complaint,
the presence of the informant is necessary. Therefore, the
learned Magistrate has issued notice to the PSI to keep the
informant present to accord permission. But the police, without
properly reading the order of the Magistrate have registered
the complaint and filed the charge sheet on the assumption
that the Magistrate has accorded permission. In fact, the
Magistrate, as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., has
directed the police to keep the informant present before the
Court to clarify the contents of the complaint. Therefore, it is
clear that though a request is made by the police, the
Magistrate has not accorded permission as required under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4378
8. Though it is clear from the provisions of Section
155(1) of Cr.P.C. that the informant shall approach the learned
Magistrate for seeking permission and in turn, the learned
Magistrate shall accord permission, however, in the subsequent
judgments, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has observed
that informant need not approach the Magistrate, but, the
police may approach the Magistrate on behalf of the informant
for seeking permission. The learned Magistrate has directed
the police to keep the informant present to clarify the contents
of the complaint. There is nothing on record to show that the
informant was kept present before the learned Magistrate and
thereafter, the Magistrate accorded permission. By wrongly
reading the observation of the Magistrate, the police have
registered the FIR and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the
criminal proceeding against the petitioners is not sustainable as
the offence alleged is a non-cognizable offence. Without the
permission of the Magistrate registering the FIR and filing of
charge sheet is not permissible. Therefore, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The
criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8720/2023 arising out of Crime
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4378
No.181/2023 registered by Station Bazar Police, Kalaburagi, for
offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC. are hereby
quashed.
However, liberty is granted to respondent No.2/police to
take necessary permission, if required, for further course of
action.
Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
