RAVENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Addl. SPP is directed to take notice for R -1.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No. 16 in the FIR registered by respondent No. 1 on the complaint of respondent No. 2. The allegation of the prosecution is that this petitioner along with co -accused was indulged in gambling. I.O. on credible information went to the spot along with panchas raided the spot, seized the incriminating materials, thereafter, on getting permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, has registered the case in NCR No. 214/15.

(3.) SN Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional SPP distinguishing the present case from the earlier ones referred to by the petitioner (wherein proceedings were quashed) submits that, the Investigating Officer on credible information obtained search warrant from the Magistrate, raided the spot and seized incriminating material under Mahaazar in the presence of panchas, arrested the accused, returned to the Police Station with seized articles and arrested the person, registered the case in Non -cognizable Case Register, on obtaining necessary permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code, registered the F.I.R. It is not a case where a private party approached the Investigating Officer with the allegation of non -cognizable offence. Hence referring the informant to the Magistrate as at Section 155(1) of the Code, would not arise. It is a case under the Karnataka Police Act, Section 155(2) have to be read independently without reference to Section 155(1) of the Code. The Investigating Officer after compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 155(2) has registered the case. The petitioners have not made out any case to invoke jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code.