Full Judgment
-1- 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-
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. -3-
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 -4- 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.
-5-
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 -6- 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 List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1