Magistrates Haven’t Changed Attitude Of Passing Callous Orders Allowing Police Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offences: Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines
The Karnataka High Court while deciding a case has observed that the Magistrates have not changed their attitude of passing callous orders allowing police investigation into the non-cognizable offences and has therefore, issued guidelines for the same.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “… the Magistrates have not changed their attitude of passing callous orders of granting permission which sometimes is only a one word order “permitted”. Therefore, the learned Magistrates by their callous action of passing of such orders have generated huge litigation before this Court as petitions are being filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of such orders which grant permission bearing no application of mind. Therefore, the learned Magistrates who pass such orders have contributed/ contributing to the docket explosion before this Court.”
The Bench said that it is rather unfortunate that the Magistrates are contributing to the pendency of such cases in the judiciary itself and it is high time now, that they should mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions received and then pass appropriate orders.
Advocate Satyanarayana Chalke S. appeared for the petitioner while HCGP Mahesh Shetty appeared for the State.
In this case, the complainant registered a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he threatened and intimidated her, and the said complaint was brought before a Police Station upon which the Station House Officer sought permission from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru to register a crime under Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation in the light of the fact that Section 506 of the IPC is a non-cognizable offence and for a non-cognizable offence, the permission of the Magistrate would be imperative under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.
The aforesaid Magistrate on receipt of requisition permitted the crime to be registered on perusal of the same. On the crime being registered, the petitioner knocked at the doors of the High Court by filing a petition not on the issue of merit of the matter but on non-application of mind on the part of the Magistrate granting permission for the same.
The High Court in the above context noted, “Since no orders are being passed despite repeated orders of this Court of the kind that this Court has directed. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to invoke the power under Section 483 of the Cr.P.C., and direct correction of errors by the learned Magistrates.”
The Court issued the following guidelines for the Magistrates to pass appropriate orders:
“(i) The learned Magistrates shall record as to who has submitted the requisition whether it is the informant or the Station House Officer and make an endorsement of receipt of requisition in a separate order sheet.
(ii) The learned Magistrates shall not pass any order if the complaint is not enclosed to the requisition.
(iii) The learned Magistrates shall notice and examine the contents of the requisition and record a prima facie finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated and if it is not a fit case to be investigated, the learned Magistrates shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. To pass this order, the order of the learned Magistrates shall bear application of mind by not rendering a detailed order or detailed inquiry at that stage but it shall bear application of mind.
(iv) The learned Magistrates should forthwith stop using the words “permitted”, “perused permitted” or “perused requisition permitted registration of FIR” on the requisition itself and pass separate orders and maintain a separate order sheet with regard to the grant of such permission. Granting permission on the requisition would be contrary to law.
(v) The order of the learned Magistrates shall contain all the aforesaid. Any deviation thereof from what is directed will be construed that the Magistrates are contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and would be viewed seriously.”
The Court further observed that it is open to a Police Officer or any complainant to approach the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., to investigate a non-cognizable offence and that there is nothing in the section to indicate that the informant alone should seek permission from the Magistrate to commence an investigation.
“Therefore, permission can either be sought by the complainant or by the Station House Officer. Wherefore, it is not necessary for the informant alone to knock at the doors of the learned Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission for registration of FIR, it could be either the informant or the Station House officer”, said the Court.
The Court concluded that the permission granted by the Magistrate is in blatant violation of what is analysed in the course of the order and hence, quashed the same and directed the Magistrate to pass an order afresh upon the requisition made.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law bearing in mind the guidelines laid down by it.
Cause Title- Vijesh Pillai v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
