RAMANATHA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for first respondent - State.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

(3.) THE records disclose that initiation of FIR, registration of case in Crime No. 100/2013 is u/s.78 of the Karnataka Police Act, which is a non -cognizable offence in nature and charge sheet is filed u/s. 80 of the Karnataka Police Act is also a non -cognizable in nature and the said offences are not punishable with imprisonment for not more than three years, but they are less than three years and fine. Therefore, the Police Officer has to take permission from the Jurisdictional Magistrate in order to investigate any non cognizable offence u/s. 155(2) of Cr.P.C. If the permission is not taken and if the Police Officer has not proceeded to the spot on the assumption that some cognizable offence was also committed and during the course of investigation, he found only non -cognizable offence is committed, such explanation is not there in the charge sheet, no permission is sought by the investigating officer to treat the said charge sheet as complaint u/s.2(d) of the Act with explanation. In the absence of such explanation or material on record, the investigation is vitiated by serious irregularities which are incurable in nature. Therefore, in my opinion, the entire charge sheet and the further proceedings deserves to be quashed. This Court has taken similar opinion in Crl.P. No. 4147/2014 vide Order dated 17.10.2014.