Karnataka High Court
Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By on 7 March, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9629
CRL.P No. 2308 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2308 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PRASANNA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
R/AT NO. 07, 4TH CROSS,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHO, SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
Digitally BANGALORE,
signed by V
KRISHNA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH COURT BUILDING,
High Court of BANGALORE - 560 020.
Karnataka
2. SRI. MAHANANDA H.K.,
POLICE OFFICER,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
SPECIAL ENQUIRY,
C.C.B, N.T. PETE,
BANGALORE - 560 053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9629
CRL.P No. 2308 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE PETITION AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.18495/2020 OF SHESHADRIPURA POLICE STATION,
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79,80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE
ACT 1963 ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT I MAYO HALL M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The accused is before this Court under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.18495/2020 pending before the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru for the
offence punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 arising out of Crime
No.11/2020 registered by Seshadripuram Police Station.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the offences for which FIR has been registered are non-
NC: 2024:KHC:9629
cognizable offences. There is no compliance of
requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C in the case. The
learned Magistrate has allegedly granted permission on
the requisition made by the police seeking permission to
investigate the case. The same cannot be considered
compliance of 155(2) of Cr.P.C in view of judgment of this
Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI
(JANGALAGI) V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH
PSI, KAGWAD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI - ILR 2020
KAR 630.
4. The learned HCGP who has opposed the petition
however does not dispute the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
5. FIR in Crime No.11/2020 is undisputedly
registered for the offences punishable under Section 79 &
80 of the Karnataka Police Act. The said offences are non-
cognizable offences and therefore compliance of Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C becomes mandatory. In the case on
NC: 2024:KHC:9629
hand, it is seen that on requisition made by Police before
the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking his permission to
investigate the case, the learned Magistrate has made
endorsement granting permission to register and
investigate the case. This Court in the case of VAGGEPPA
(supra) at paragraph No.20 has observed as follows:
"20. Therefore, under Rule 1, 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 of 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 passed on the requisition
itself. The said order sheet should be
NC: 2024:KHC:9629
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".
6. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that
there is compliance of requirement of Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C, in the present case. Therefore, the impugned
proceedings cannot be sustained.
NC: 2024:KHC:9629
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.18495/2020
pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic
Court-1, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 arising
out of Crime No.11/2020 registered by Seshadripuram
Police Station is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to
petitioner herein is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
CT:SNN
