Karnataka High Court: In a criminal petition filed under section of the (‘CrPC’), to set aside order dated 17-10-2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class (‘J.M.F.C.’), Turuvekere, Karnataka wherein cognizance of offence, under Section read with Section of the (‘IPC’), was taken against the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J. quashed the proceedings which were pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and allowed the criminal petition after finding that application of mind by the Magistrate, which is required by law when a magistrate grants permission to register a crime, was ostensibly absent in the impugned order.
Background
The complainant, who claimed to be the president of a political party, alleged that the petitioner sought to undermine the dignity of the party by making derogatory statements after losing the election. The police, on receipt of the complaint against the petitioner, rendered a non-cognizable report and placed the complaint before the Magistrate for obtaining permission to register a crime on non-cognizable offence under Section read with Section of the . The Magistrate permitted the registration of the crime. Following police investigation, the Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner, which gave rise to the present petition. The petitioners contend that there was no application of mind by the Magistrate in his order, and thus, everything in the aftermath was a nullity.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted the recordings made by the Magistrate which said that after the police officer receives information about a non-cognizable offence, then permission must be necessarily sought from the jurisdictional Magistrate to proceed with the investigation.
The Court said that the so called application of mind by the Magistrate was only in the words – “By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non-cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with law.” which, by no stretch of imagination, could be an order that bore application of mind.
The Court rejected the respondent’s defence that since the impugned order was lengthy , there was an application of mind. It was found to be ‘shocking’ that Magistrates callously grant permissions under Section of without reasons or application of mind. It was also said that merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean that an order is based on application of mind.
Lastly, the Court said that the inevitable conclusion in the present matter is obliteration of crime, and thus, while allowing the criminal petition, it quashed the proceedings pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
[Krishnappa M.T v. State of Karnataka ,Criminal Petition No. 13215 OF 2023, Decided on 07-11-2024]
Order by Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Advocate Nandini B, Advocate Bhargav G.
For the Respondents: Addl. SPP B.N. Jagadeesha
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Section of the
Section 352 read with Section of the
The post appeared first on .