IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Criminal Petition No.7692/2017 Between:
1. Hanumanthappa, S/o Chikke Gowda @ Chikkanna, Aged about 65 years, No.15, 9th Cross, Magadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore – 560 079.
2. Yathiraju, S/o M.S.Ramaiah, Aged about 50 years, No.7/11, 2nd Main, 6th Cross, Govindarajanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040.
3. Lakkanna, S/o Muniswamaiah, Aged about 48 years, No.6/9, 2nd Main, 4th Cross, Govindarajanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. ... Petitioners (By Sri.Vishwanath M.P., Advocate) And:
1. The Inspector of Police, CCB Police, Spl. Enquiry, N.T. Pet, Bangalore – 560 002.
2. The Station House Officer, Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 040.
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondents (By Sri.S.Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioners above named in C.C.No.1284/2015 for the offence P/U/S 79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, pending on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court, II, Bengaluru.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Shri. S Chandrashekaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
2. Petitioners are before this Court for quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1284/2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the K.P. Act.
3. The issue which has been raised in the present petition has already been considered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4758/2017 dated 14.07.2017( Mahesha C.K. & another Vs. The State of Karnataka), whereunder the Court had disposed of said petition by observing as under:
“ 3. Case papers do not disclose that before raid came to be conducted, permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate had been obtained. Offence being non-cognizable in nature, Investigating Officer was required to obtain permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as per the procedure contemplated under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. On account of said mandatory procedure not being followed, prosecution cannot be continued. Undisputedly, same is not followed in the instant case and it vitiates the entire proceedings.
4. Time and again, this Court in similar circumstances, has held that prosecution initiated in violation of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law. In respect of the very same crime number, other accused persons who had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.9413/2016 had the benefit of proceedings against them being quashed.”
In the circumstances stated above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1284/2015 (Crime No.302/2015) pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru, stands quashed.
(iii) Seized amount and articles are ordered to be returned to the petitioners-accused Nos.3, 6 and 7.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE *PSG