Karnataka High Court

Dheeraj Muniraj vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:42809
                                                        CRL.P No. 13204 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13204 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                            DHEERAJ MUNIRAJ,
                            S/O MUNIRAJ P, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                            NO. 167, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
                            VADDARAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL,
                            KARNATAKA - 561 205.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                          SRI. ARNAV A BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE STATION,
                            REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE,
Digitally signed by
                            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KAVYA G                     BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
                      2.    RAMEGOWDA D,
                            S/O DODDAHANUMAIAH,
                            AGED 40 YEARS, HEAD OF FST,
                            DODDABALLAPURA LC-180,
                            DODDABELAVANGALA AND SASALU HOBLI,
                            AEE NAGARSABHE, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
                            BENGALURU DIST., KARNATAKA - 561 205.
                                                                ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
                          R2- SERVED)
                                     -2-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:42809
                                            CRL.P No. 13204 of 2023




        THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH        THE    FIR    IN   CR.NO.74/2023     DATED   13.05.2023
PURSUANT           TO     THE    COMPLIANT        DATED   13.05.2023
REGISTERED BY THE I RESPONDENT DODDABELAVENGALA
POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL        (Jr.Dn.)     AND    JMFC     COURT    DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
P/US/.171-B, 171-E OF IPC 1860 AND OFFENCE P/U/S.123(1)
OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT 1950, 1951, 1989.

        THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                                ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.74/2023 registered for

offences punishable under Section 171B and 171E of the IPC

and under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the Peoples

Act.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Murthy D.

Naik along with the learned counsel, Sri. Arnav A., appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, the learned

Addl.SPP representing respondent No.1.

NC: 2024:KHC:42809

3. The facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The second respondent, who is the head of the Flying

Squad on an incident that happens on 09.05.2023 of

distribution of certain money, registers a complaint before the

jurisdictional police, which is said to have been closed

in rendering a non-cognizable report in NCR No.188/2023.

Next day, emerges a complaint by the second respondent

alleging that distribution of money was seen for luring the

voters to vote to a particular party. Requisition was sent by the

police to the learned Magistrate seeking permission to register

the crime, as offences alleged were non-cognizable.

4. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated

13.05.2023, permits registration of the crime and thus, crime is

registered and investigation would ensue. The registration of

the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court, in the

subject petition.

5. Learned Senior counsel, Sri. Murthy D. Naik,

appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned

Magistrate has granted permission on a plain paper without a

NC: 2024:KHC:42809

compliant being appended to it and also would suffer from

non-application of mind. He would seek to place reliance upon

the judgment of this Court in the case of VIJESH PILLAI V.

STATE OF KARNATAKA1.

6. The learned Addl. SPP, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha would

refute the submission contending that the ingredients of all the

offences are found at the hand merely because the learned

Magistrate has not applied its mind or not looked into the

compliant. The issue would not go in favour of the petitioner.

He would seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

respective submissions made by the learned Senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl.SPP and have

perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.

The incident that leads to registration of the complaint happens

on 09.05.2023. The allegation on the incident is that the

2023 SCC OnLine Kar 32

NC: 2024:KHC:42809

distribution of money to lure voters to vote to a particular

party. The complaint emerges on 13.05.2023 by the second

respondent. The complaint was for non-cognizable offences and

the nod of the learned Magistrate was imperative to be

obtained prior to the registration of the crime. The requisition

is sent by the Station House Officer. On the requisition, the

learned Magistrate passes the following order:

"Received Requisition at home

Office on 13/05/2023 at 9:30 am.

Perused the requisition,

Perused the Acknowledgement of NCR No.188/2023

Dated-1215/23

On Perusal of requisition as prima facie

case is made out,

Permission granted to proceed in

Accordance with law.

Issue true copy of this order

To Doddabelavangala Police Station."

The order would read that the requisition was sent to his

house and requisition is perused and on perusal of the

requisition, prima facie case is made out and permission was

granted for registration of the crime. This on the face of it,

NC: 2024:KHC:42809

would fly foul of what this Court has held in the afore-quoted

judgment in the case of VIJESH PILLAI supra.

9. Considering the purport of Section 155(2) of

the Cr.P.C. of grant of permission to register a crime on

non-cognizable offence, this Court has laid down certain

guidelines. The guidelines would read as follows:

"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 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

NC: 2024:KHC:42809

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."

10. It was directed that the learned Magistrate would

not pass any order, if the complaint is not enclosed to the

requisition. This clause would be enough circumstance to

obliterate the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as the

admitted fact is that the compliant is not enclosed to the

requisition without looking into the complaint, the learned

Magistrate has observed that prima facie ingredients of the

offence are met and therefore, the permission is granted. This

as observed hereinabove on the face of it is contrary to law.

On this solitary ground, the crime so registered and

investigation taken up would stand obliterated and the matter

is remitted back to the hands of the learned Magistrate only to