IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No.310/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI ARUN KUMAR S/O PANDURANGAPPA AGED 50 YEARS NO.48, JAGANNATHA BHAVANA TEMPLE STREET, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003 (BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M. ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY K.R.NAGARA POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. SRI YADAVA BABU R.K. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED 38 YEARS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER R.S.K. BILIKERE, HUNSURU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.373/2018 OF K.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT K.R.NAGARA, MYSORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 127A OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP for respondent.
2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him for alleged offence punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1950, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Perusal of case papers would disclose that offence alleged against petitioner namely 127A of the Act is a non-cognizable offence and as such, obtaining permission from jurisdictional Magistrate before commencement of investigation as prescribed under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory.
4. In instance case, learned HCGP would rely upon the endorsement made by learned Magistrate to the effect “Permitted” as same being in compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. whereas learned counsel for petitioner would submit that such permission would not amount to due permission as there is lack of judicious application of mind.
5. This Court, after referring to earlier decisions, has held in Writ Petitions No.42073-42075/2018 (GM-RES) (The Padubidri Members Lounge & Others v. Director General & Inspector General of Police, Bengaluru & Others) decided on 3.10.2018, has held that endorsement made by learned Magistrate stating “Permitted” would not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The said ratio would squarely applicable to the facts on hand in as much as endorsement made in Annexure-C by the jurisdictional Magistrate is to the same effect namely on requisition of jurisdictional police to conduct investigation, learned Magistrate has endorsed on said communication dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-C) as “Permitted”. In other words, scrutiny of case papers and material placed by the prosecution is not examined and thereby judicious application of mind is lacking while granting permission. Hence, this Court is of considered view that the proceedings initiated against petitioner deserve to be quashed.
6. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in Cr.No.373/2018 registered by K.R.Nagara Police Station, for offence punishable under Section 127A of the Act on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District, stands quashed and petitioner is acquitted of aforesaid offence.
(iii) In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE TL