IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2126 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MITHUN R.V S/O VENKATESH L.K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2. SMT. PRATIBHA R.V W/O NISHANTH K. HONNAVALLI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3. SRI. VENKATESH L.K S/O LATE L. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO. 113, 4TH MAIN 2ND STAGE, MICO LAYOUT ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 076 … PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICE PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOUR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. NISHANTH K. HONNAVALLI S/O C. KRISHNA R/AT MANASVI, NO. T2 OASIS APARTMENTS, 15TH MAIN 5TH PHASE, J.P NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI. SANKET M. YENAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.239/2018 DATED 11.09.2018 REGISTERD BY THE PUTTENAHALLI P.S., AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION DATED 24.08.2018 LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE ARE PRODUCE HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri Anoop Haranahalli, learned advocate for the petitioners, Shri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the State and Shri Sanket M. Yenagi, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
2. Respondent No.2 is husband of petitioner No.2.
He approached the police with a request to help him in counseling his wife namely, petitioner No.2. Police registered FIR No.239/2018. Thereafter, on 06.09.2018, police filed a requisition seeking permission of the learned Magistrate to register the case.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has made available a requisition submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttenahalli Police Station. A perusal of the said requisition shows that a seal has been affixed on the application which reads as ‘permitted’ and the learned Magistrate has signed at the designated place. No reasons are recorded for granting permission.
4. 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)].
5. In the circumstances, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.4397/2019 arising out of FIR No.239/2018 pending on the file of XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV