Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sandeep R Shetty vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|31 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.406 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SANDEEP R SHETTY S/O RAMESH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT MATRUSHRI NILAYA NEAR KOPPALA, BAJAGOLI POST MUDARU VILLAGE, KARKALA TQ UDUPI – 574 121 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. LOLAKSHA POLICE SUB INSPECTOR KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION UDUPI – 574 118 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1110/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA, UDUPI IN CR.NO.80/2018 REGISTERED BY THE KARKALA RURAL POLICE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 78(I), 78(III) OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Advocate for petitioner and Smt.K.P. Yashodha, learned HCGP for respondent-State.
2. Petitioner has challenged proceedings initiated against him for violation of Sections 78(I), 78(III) of Karnataka Police Act alleging that they were involved in gambling (Matka).
3. Shri Dhananjay Kumar submits that the said offence is non-cognizable and the learned Magistrate has granted permission without applying his mind.
4. Learned HCGP has made available a copy of requisition submitted by the Station House Officer of Karkala Rural Police Station. A perusal of the said requisition shows that the learned Magistrate has endorsed as ‘permitted’. No reasons are recorded for granting permission.
5. This Court has taken a consistent view that a mere endorsement made by the learned Magistrate as ‘permitted’ without recording reasons is not a speaking order. [See- The Padubidri Members Lounge and others Vs. Director General and Inspector General of Police and others (W.Ps.No.42073-42075/2018 D.D. 3.10.2018)].
6. In the circumstances, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.1110/2018 (Crime No.80/2018) pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, Udupi are quashed so far as petitioner is concerned.
7. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/19 does not survive of consideration and the same is also disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE HKH
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sandeep R Shetty vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2019
Judges
  • P S Dinesh Kumar