IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.662/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SUDARSHAN S/O BHYREGOWDA AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE & BUSINESS, R/O SUDARSHAN FARM HOUSE, ALENAHALLI CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
2. C.H. RAJESH S/O HUCHCHANNA OCC: WORKING AT SUDARSHAN FARM HOUSE R/O SUBBANAYAKANA BEEDI KOTE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
3. MURALI S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: CONSTRUCTION WORK R/O TAMIL COLONY, MARKET ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.
4. ANNAMALIA S/O RAMASWAMY AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: CONSTRUCTION WORK R/O TAMIL COLONY MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BASAVANAHALLI P.S CHIKKAMAGALURU, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. P.S. CHANDRAMOHAN A.E.E. PLANNING SUB DIVISON CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRLIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.545/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU NOW TRANSFERRED AND PENDING AS SPL.C.CNO.344/2018 BEFORE THE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-82).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Showri H.R, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, Sri.S.Chandrashekharaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Sri.Showri H.R., learned advocate appearing for petitioners submits that first respondent has registered FIR in Crime No.106/2013 on 19.06.2013 against petitioner in Basavanahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence and therefore it cannot be investigated without express permission granted by way of a speaking order passed by learned jurisdictional Magistrate.
3. In the instant case, learned Magistrate has endorsed on a requisition submitted by the police as ‘permitted’ and as such, it is contended that it is a non- speaking order. He further submits that pursuant to investigation so conducted, charge sheet has been filed in Spl.C.C.No.344/2018.
4. The facts narrated by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is not disputed by the learned HCGP.
5. This Court after adverting to earlier decisions, has taken a consistent view that endorsement made by the learned Magistrate as ‘permitted’ does not amount to 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)].
6. In the circumstances, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Resultantly, all proceedings pending in C.C.No.545/2013 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, is quashed, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused.
SD/- JUDGE DR