IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6429 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
DINESH S/O. APPANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT:100/6, MARUTHINAGAR MAIN ROAD 9TH CROSS, B.T.M.LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 072.
(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.,) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.10233/2012 (CRIME NO.273/2011) OF HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.3, 4, 5 AND 7 OF I.T.P.ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACMM, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“(a) To call for records.
(b) Quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.10233/2012 (Crime No.273/2011) of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of I.T.P Act, pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in the interests of justice and equity.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was registered by Sub-Inspector of Police, High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence under Sections, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act. He further submtis that this Court has interpreted Section 13 of the Act to the extent that Competent Authority for initiation of proceedigns is with reference to notification issued by the State Government wherein, it is identified that authorised officer like Superintendent of Police, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, in other words not below the rank of Police Inspectors can investigate the matter. Undisputedly, in this matter Sub-Inspector of Police has taken up the matter. Consequently, such proceeding is without authority of law and the said issue is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shankare Gowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station and another – Crl.P.No.5330/2015 decided on 03.02.2016.
3. The aforesaid decision is not disputed by the learned State counsel and at the same time, he intends to apprise this Court stating that even Sub-Inspector of Police is a officer of the Police Department who can take up the matter for initiation of proceedings under the I.T.P. Act.
4. The provisions of I.T.P. Act, in particular, Section 13 of the act provides for issuance of notification to appoint the Authorised Officer who can take up the proceedings under the ITP Act. Undisputedly, State Government has issued a notification wherein, it identifes the Authorised Officer in the police department. Perusal of the authorisation, it is evident that Police Inspector and above upto the rank of Superintendent of Police are authorised and as per the State Government notification a Special Police Officer has to be authorised. In the absence of such authorisation of Special Police Officer, the aforesaid contention of learned State counsel is untenable.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.10233/2012 (Crime No.273/2011) pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bengalurum, stand quashed in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.5330/2015.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ