IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 4954/2014 BETWEEN :
Sri. A.H. Vishwanath S/o. late Huchegowda Aged about 66 years Occ. Agriculturist and Ex.M.P. No. 1182, 3rd Cross Arvind Nagar Mysore – 570 023. … PETITIONER (By Sri. K.V. Thimmaiah, Adv.) AND :
The State of Karnataka by The Police of Lashkar Police Station Mysore – 570 004 Rep. by The State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore – 560 001. … RESPONDENT (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.06.2014 passed in JMFC (II Court), Mysore in C.C. No. 327/2014 wherein process has been directed to be issued against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 171-E IPC, consequently quash the entire proceedings and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent.
2. Charge sheet is laid against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC.
3. The legal point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged offence is a non- cognizable offence and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offence without ensuring compliance of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though an application was submitted before the learned Magistrate seeking authorization for investigation into the alleged offence, the learned Magistrate has merely endorsed as `permitted’. The said endorsement is not in compliance of requirements under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. as held by this Court in the case of Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2017 (1) AKR 461.
4. The learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned action.
5. It is not in dispute that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a non-cognizable offence. Under the said circumstance the respondent Police could not have investigated into the alleged offence without prior permission of the learned Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. The records disclose that an application was submitted before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to register case and to investigate into the alleged offence. But, the learned Magistrate has not passed any order on the said application instead has made an endorsement reading as `permitted’. This Court has already considered the effect of such an endorsement and has held that the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate on the application submitted by the Police Officer under Section 155 Cr.P.C. as `permitted’ is not an `order’ in the eye of law. Therefore, in the light of these facts the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner being illegal and opposed to mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner and presently pending on the file of JMFC (II Court), Mysore in C.C. No. 327/2014 are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.