Karnataka High Court
Dr Sharvani Kanakaraddi W/O Ajit ... vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
CRL.P No. 103051 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103051 OF 2023 (482-)
BETWEEN:
DR SHARVANI KANAKARADDI
W/O AJIT KANAKARADDI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O VENKATESH HOSPITAL,
MAHALINGAPURA, TQ: BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Z.M.HATTARKI AND
SRI. ARZOO M.MULLA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION,
REPTD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
SHILPA R DHARWAD-580001.
TENIHALLI
Location: High 2. DR. VEENA SHRINIVAS KANAKARADDI
Court Of Karnataka
W/O SHRINIVAS KANAKARADDI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC DOCTOR,
R/O VENKATESH HOSPITAL,
MAHALINGAPURA, TQ: BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
3. DR. SHRINIVAS KANAKARADDI
S/O VENKATESH KANAKARADDI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O VENKATESH HOSPITAL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
CRL.P No. 103051 of 2023
MAHALINGAPURA, TQ: BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN DEVAREDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SACHIN A. ANGADI AND
SRI. AVINASH M. ANAGADI, ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.5060/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE SITTING AT
JAMKHANDI DATED 11.04.2023 WHICH UPHOLD THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI CC
NO.879/2022 (OLD CC NO.811/2020) DATED 08.09.2022 ON
THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 155 (2) OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING PERMISSION FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Z.M.Hattarki, learned counsel for
petitioner.
2. This court by order dated 07.06.2022 quashed
the FIR in Crime No.60/2022 dated 26.06.2020 and
further directed that the complainant if approaches the
jurisdictional Magistrate to obtain necessary permission
the same shall be considered by the learned trial
Magistrate in accordance with law for the alleged offences
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
committed by the accused Nos.2 and 3 which are non-
cognizable in nature.
3. Despite such directions, the learned trial
Magistrate has proceeded to reject the complaint by order
dated 08.09.2022 which was also confirmed by the
learned Judge in the revisional court in
Crl.R.P.No.5060/2022.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
Sri Z.M.Hattarki, learned counsel for petitioner contended
that in the event a non-cognizable offence has been
committed by a person, the complainant can very well
approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a request to
permit the jurisdictional police to investigate the matter
and Magistrate is required to pass a speaking order
whether a case requires a investigation or not.
5. According to the petitioner, such a course has
not been adopted by the learned trial Magistrate and so
also the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the
complaint of the petitioner and revision petition of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
petitioner. Therefore, he has sought for quashing of the
orders passed by the learned trial Magistrate and the
learned Judge in the revisional court and sought for by
allowing the criminal petition.
6. It is pertinent to note that under
Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in
respect of a non cognizable offence, the complainant has
to approach the Magistrate and seek the permission and
not the jurisdiction police.
7. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the
complainant. Taking note of the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa
Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State of
Karnataka, through P.S.I, Kagood Police Station,
Belgavi1, this court permitted the complainant to
approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a prayer for
granting necessary permission.
ILR 2020 KAR 630
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
8. Leaned trial Magistrate in paragraphs 6 and 7
held as under :-
"6. Perused the entire order copy of the
Crl.P.NO.100538/2022 produced before this Court. It
is clear that, the petition filed by petitioners/accused
is allowed and the registration of FIR in
Cr.No.60/2020 dated 26.06.2020 is quashed.
However, liberty is given to the complainant to take
the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate and to
obtain necessary permission if need be for further
proceeding with the case. Hence, it is clear that, the
registration of Fir itself is quashed and the prayer of
learned counsel for applicant/complainant to grant
necessary permission as required U/sec.155(2) of
Cr.P.C to PSI, Mahalingapur in Mahalingapur P.S
Cr.No.60/2020 for the investigation with a specific
direction to PSI, Mahalingapur does not arise at all.
7. However, in view of the liberty given by
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to the
complainant, she can file complaint before the
Magistrate and obtain necessary permission in
accordance with law for further proceedings. Hence, in
view of the quashing of Fir in Cr.No.60/2020, the
entire proceedings in this case against accused
persons vitiates and deserves to be closed. The
application filed by complainant does not survive for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
consideration in view of the quashing of Fir in this
case. Hence, the file is closed."
9. The trial Magistrate has failed to understand the
direction issued by this Court in reserving the liberty for
the complainant to approach for necessary permission
though the order of this court has been extracted in the
order. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial
Magistrate that quashing of the FIR has resulted in the
closure of the case and therefore permission cannot be
granted is per se illegal and amounts to non application of
mind. The said aspect has been ignored by the leaned trial
Magistrate.
10. Further, learned Sessions Judge in the criminal
revision petition in paragraph 16 is held as under :-
"16. On a careful reading of the order of the
Hon'ble High Court it is clear that while quashing the
complaint a liberty has been given to the complainant
to take the complaint to the jurisdiction magistrate
and if required obtain necessary permission for
further proceedings with the case. The observations
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
made by the Hon'ble High Court would indicate that
the complainant has to file a private complaint before
the jurisdictional magistrate and seek for necessary
orders with respect to investigation of the case. In
other words what the revision petitioner was require
to do is to file a private complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C and
then seek for necessary permission by the magistrate
for referring the matter for investigation or proceed
with the case by adducing sworn statement.
Therefore, the revision petitioner could not have
maintained an application U/s. 155(2) of Cr.P.C before
the learned magistrate as the very proceedings in the
entire case has been quashed as a result of quashing
of the Fir by the Hon'ble High Court in its order cited
supra. Hence, the impugned order passed by the
learned magistrate does not call for any interference
by this Court in revision and accordingly, I answer
Point No.1 in negative."
11. Again the learned Sessions Judge has
unfortunately failed to note the direction issued by this
Court in reserving liberty for the petitioner to obtain the
necessary permission.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
12. Therefore, both the courts have erred in law in
not properly understanding the liberty that has been
granted to the petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant.
13. Hence, by allowing criminal petition both orders
needs to be set-aside and the matter is remitted to the
learned trial Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance
with law on the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and pass a speaking order
whether the case deserves grant of permission for
investigation by police or not, within a period of three
months from today.
Hence, the following :
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 10.04.2023 passed in
Criminal Revision Petition No.5060/2022 by
the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi and the
order dated 08.09.2022 passed in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5126
C.C.No.879/2022 by the court of Civil Judge
and JMFC, Banahatti are hereby set-aside.
iii) The matter is remitted to the learned trial
Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance
with law on the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and
pass a speaking order whether the case
deserves grant of permission for investigation
by police or not, within a period of three
months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
CT:SI
