IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.279/2019 BETWEEN:
MR. SUNIL KUMAR G.P AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O PUTTEGOWDA R/O GOVINDAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAPATANA TALUK RAMANAGARA – 562 160.
KARNATAKA.
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CHANNAPATNA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MS. MANJULA G.M AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O MANCHEGOWDA R/O GOVINDAHALLI VILLAGE MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA – 562 160 KARNATAKA.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.145/2018 OF CHANNAPATNA POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT, CHANNAPATNA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. Second respondent has lodged a compliant on 20.11.2018 before Channapatna Police Station alleging that she was engaged to the petitioner on 05.09.2018 and their marriage was to be solemnized on 18.11.2018 but did not come through on account of illegal demands made by the petitioner. She has also alleged that when she attempted to get in touch with petitioner over phone, he had abused her, threatened her with dire consequences if she made attempts to contact him. On recording further statement of the complainant on 20.11.2018, the jurisdictional Police have registered the FIR in Crime No.145/2018 against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 IPC. For quashing of said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is the contention of Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that allegation in the complaint does not disclose of commission of any offence and the alleged permission which jurisdictional Police have obtained is not in compliance with Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition and quashing of said proceedings.
4. Per contra, Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 would support prosecution initiated against petitioner and would also contend that permission has been granted by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 20.11.2018 and there is no infirmity whatsoever. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Perusal of FIR would disclose that same is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 IPC which are non cognizable offences. It is because of this reason, the jurisdictional Police have submitted the requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 20.11.2018 seeking permission to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation. Learned Magistrate on the same requisition has endorsed to the following effect:
“Seen & permitted, Sd/-
Judge, 20.11.2018.”
6. This Court after adverting to earlier decisions has held in W.P.No.42073-42075/2018 (GM- RES) (The Padubidri Members lounge and others v/s Director General and Inspector General of police and others) disposed of on 03.10.2018 held that endorsement made by the learned Magistrate stating “Permitting”, does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the additional word as noticed hereinabove namely, ‘Seen’ has been included while according permission to the jurisdictional police to investigate. This would not be the mode and method in which the permission can be granted. In the light of aforestated decisions and granting ‘Permission’ would result in serious consequences, it would be incumbent upon the learned Magistrate or trial Judge as the case may be to apply his judicious mind and it would be essential criteria before according such permission. In other words, subjective satisfaction and objective assessment of the material that would be placed by the Police is the hall mark for granting permission and this is the purport and intent of Section 155 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, such an exercise has not been undertaken and as continuation of proceedings against petitioner would not be just and proper. Hence, petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed.
(2) Proceedings pending against petitioner in Crime No.145/2018 registered by Channapatna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 IPC on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Channapatna, stands quashed and petitioner is acquitted of said offences.
In view of petition having been allowed, I.A.No.1/19 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE RU