IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5262 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGANATHA S/O SHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC:LABOURER R/AT GOVINAHALU VILLAGE HARIHARA (TQ) DAVANGERE (DIST)-577 530 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. G.B. MARUTHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALEBENNUR P.S REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.262/2019 (CRIME NO.19/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HARIHARA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Accused No.2 in C.C.No.262/2019 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar, has presented this petition challenging the charge sheet.
2. Shri G.B.Maruthi, learned advocate for the petitioner urged following grounds in support of this petition;
that offence alleged being punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is non-cognizable in nature. As per Annexure-B, police have obtained permission to investigate into the matter only against accused No.1. Therefore, the proceedings against petitioner are not maintainable as his name is not found in the request made by the police seeking permission to investigate; and that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate is cryptic in nature and therefore, it is without application of mind.
3. Shri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP, opposing the petition, submitted that based on a source report that Basavaraju, accused No.1 was offering Rs.80/- to an investor of Re.1 to any gambler, police sought permission from the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction and granted permission. Thereafter, police have investigated into the case and found that petitioner was also involved in the case. Accordingly, charge sheet has been filed against both accused. Hence, there is no procedural irregularity.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5. On the requisition submitted by the police, learned Magistrate has recorded as follows:
“perused the requisition. grounds are satisfactory. Hence, permitted to conduct ride and register the case.
Sd/- 11:15 a.m.
in open Court 4/2/2019” (sic) 6. After obtaining permission, police have investigated and filed the charge sheet.
7. The first ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner is not found in the requisition. A careful perusal of the requisition shows that source report received by the police was to the effect that one Basavaraju was offering Rs.80/- to an investor of Re.1. Based on this information, the permission has been sought. Learned Magistrate has accorded permission after perusing the requisition. He has recorded his satisfaction while granting permission. After investigation, police have found that accused No.2(petitioner herein) was also involved in the case. Therefore, ground urged in this behalf is untenable.
8. The second ground is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is cryptic in nature. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order recorded by the learned Magistrate discloses his satisfaction and the same has been recorded in the order. Hence, no exception can be taken to the said order and filing of charge sheet after investigation. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
9. In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV