IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.563 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI AVINASH PRABHU MANAGING DIRECTOR, SKYLINE CONSTRUCTIONS AND HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.11,HAYES ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.
2. SRI DHEERAJ PRABHU DIRECTOR, SKYLINE CONSTRUCTIONS AND HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.11,HAYES ROAD, BENGALURU-560025.
3. SUKHPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O R. GOVINDER SINGH, NO.14/1 5TH CROSS ANEPALLYA, BENGALURU-30 4. RAGHAV S/O H.S. PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, N.10, RAMARAO LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-50 5. VIKRAM S/O MAIN VEL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.13, 11TH CROSS, ANEPALLYA, BENGALURU-30 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: H.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: B A BELLIAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.25102/2012 REGISTERED BY THE ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323,504,427 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In response to the direction issued by this Court, Smt. Lakshmi Devi. M, Police Inspector, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Chickballapur has filed an affidavit narrating the details of the investigation conducted by her. Affidavit is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent.
The complainant is not made party to the proceedings.
2. Petitioners have sought to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.25102/2012 registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. One of the contentions urged by the petitioners is that all the offences alleged against the petitioners are non-cognizable offences and hence institution of the proceedings without prior authorization of the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is illegal and abuse of process of Court.
3. Meeting the contentions, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent has referred to the requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer to the learned Magistrate seeking permission under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said requisition shows that the learned magistrate has merely endorsed as ‘permitted’ and there is no considered order authorizing or permitting the respondent police to embark upon investigation.
3. Implication of such an endorsement has been considered by this Court in PRAVEEN BASAVANNEPPA SHIVALLI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and others in W.P.No.102248/2016 dated 11.07.2016 and it has been held that such an endorsement is not ‘an order’ in the eye of law and in view of the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C., the investigation made and the consequent charge- sheet filed by the investigating agency is illegal and cannot be sustained.
For the above reasons, petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement made by the learned Magistrate and the consequent charge sheet submitted by the respondent police and the order of taking cognizance of the offences by the learned Magistrate are quashed.
Matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the requisition submitted by the police. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer shall proceed in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-