IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25 th TH DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL. P. NO. 100319/2014 C/W. CRL. P. NO. 100326/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100335/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100336/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100353/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100357/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100358/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100377/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100380/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100404/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100405/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100423/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100454/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100480/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100481/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100482/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100483/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100484/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100485/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100500/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100507/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100510/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100511/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100530/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100531/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100532/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100533/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100536/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100567/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100568/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100443/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100444/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100445/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100446/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100447/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100448/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100449/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100456/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100457/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100458/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100459/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100460/2014 & CRL. P. NO. 100891/2014 (TOTALLY 43 MATTERS) R
126
Embed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DATED THIS THE 25judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/14352/1/… · in the high court of karnataka, dharwad bench dated this the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25th TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRL. P. NO. 100319/2014C/W.
CRL. P. NO. 100326/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100335/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100336/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100353/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100357/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100358/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100377/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100380/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100404/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100405/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100423/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100454/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100480/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100481/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100482/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100483/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100484/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100485/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100500/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100507/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100510/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100511/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100530/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100531/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100532/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100533/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100536/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100567/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100568/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100443/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100444/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100445/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100446/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100447/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100448/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100449/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100456/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100457/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100458/2014, CRL. P. NO. 100459/2014,CRL. P. NO. 100460/2014 & CRL. P. NO. 100891/2014
(TOTALLY 43 MATTERS)
R
2
IN CRL.P. NO. 100319/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT BEPLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2010THE STAGE REGISTERING THE CRIMINAL CASE ANDALSO ORDER SUMMONING THE PETITIONER BEFORE THECOURT IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE ALLEGEDOFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 IN C.C. NO. 365/2010 ONTHE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN.) &J.M.F.C., BELLARY AND TO QUASH THE CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
3
IN CRL.P. NO. 100326/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 22.2.2013 THE STATE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 IN C.C.NO. 433/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVILJUDGE (JR. DVN.) & J.M.F.C., BELLARY AND TO QUASHTHE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
4
IN CRL.P. NO. 100335/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 29.01.2013 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.486/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.
5
IN CRL.P. NO. 100336/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 17.09.2011 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.491/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.
6
IN CRL.P. NO. 100353/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 24.02.2012 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER DATED 18.06.2012SUMMONING THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT INTHE INSTANT CASE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCEPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKAPOLICE ACT, 1963, IN C.C.NO.168/2012 ON THE FILE OFTHE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT,BELLARY, AND TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGSINSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
7
IN CRL.P. NO. 100357/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 01.03.2013 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.119/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.IN CRL.P. NO. 100358/2014:
8
BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 29.08.2013 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 INC.C.NO.638/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & J.M.F.C. BELLARY AND TO QUASH THECRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100377/2014:
9
BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 21.04.2014 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.879/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100380/2014:
10
BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 21.04.2014 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.878/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100404/2014:
11
BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 09.12.2013 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASEFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.932/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100405/2014:
12
BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTIION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 9.12.2013 THE STATE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE WITHOUT TAKING COGINANCE ANDWITHOUT ISSUING SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERFOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDERSECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, INC.C.NO.1035/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AND TOQUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTEDAGAINST THE PETITIONER.IN CRL.P. NO. 100423/2014:BETWEEN:
13
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 24.01.2014 THE STAGE WITHOUT ORDERREGISTERING THE CRIMINAL CASE AND WITHOUTTAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE AND DIRECT ORDERSUMMONING THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT INTHE INSTANT CASE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCESPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKAPOLICE ACT, 1963 IN C.C.NO.74/2014 ON THE FILE OFTHE I-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT,BELLARY, AND TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGSINSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100454/2014:BETWEEN:
14
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERDATED 10.11.2011 THE STAGE REGISTERING THECRIMINAL CASE WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THECASE AND ALSO ORDER SUMMONING THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THEALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3)OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, IN C.C.NO.1030/2011ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFCCOURT, BELLARY, AND TO QUASH THE CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100480/2014:BETWEEN:
15
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRDATED 16.01.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.15/2012 BYTHE COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.502/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
IN CRL.P. NO. 100481/2014:BETWEEN:
16
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED13.01.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.13/2012 BY THE COWLBAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY AND SUBSEQUENTCRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.478/2012 ON THEFILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT,BELLARY, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
17
IN CRL.P. NO. 100482/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRDATED 08.07.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.257/2013 BYTHE COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.637/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
18
IN CRL.P. NO. 100483/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY BRUCEPET POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRDATED 16.02.2011 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.30/2011 BYTHE BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.348/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
19
IN CRL.P. NO. 100484/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY BRUCEPET POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRDATED 30.12.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.302/2012 BYTHE BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.291/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
20
IN CRL.P. NO. 100485/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY BRUCEPET POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRDATED 17.10.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.285/2013 BYTHE BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1161/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
21
IN CRL.P. NO. 100500/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY APMC YARD POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDERSECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIRDATED 07.10.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.73/2013 BYTHE APMC YARD POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1076/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
22
IN CRL.P. NO. 100507/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100507/2014 IS FILEDUNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THEFIR DATED 10.01.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.11/2012BY THE GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1036/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
23
IN CRL.P. NO. 100510/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED02.01.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.2/2012 BY THEGANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1066/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
24
IN CRL.P. NO. 100511/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED28.08.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.260/2013 BY THEGANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1576/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
25
IN CRL.P. NO. 100530/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY RURAL POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED18.07.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.204/2013 BY THERURAL POLICE STATION, BELLARY AND SUBSEQUENTCRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.841/2013 ON THEFILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT,BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
26
IN CRL.P. NO. 100531/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED13.08.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.232/2013 BY THEGANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1699/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
27
IN CRL.P. NO. 100532/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED02.01.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.3/2012 BY THEGANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1067/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
28
IN CRL.P. NO. 100533/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED28.11.2013 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.412/2013 BY THECOWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.61/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
29
IN CRL.P. NO. 100536/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED23.08.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.244/2012 BY THECOWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.116/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
30
IN CRL.P. NO. 100567/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED03.04.2012 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.102/2012 BY THECOWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.713/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
31
IN CRL.P. NO. 100568/2014:BETWEEN:
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O. D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED17.08.2011 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.163/2011 BY THEGANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.1014/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST PETITIONER.
32
IN CRL.P. NO. 100443/2014:BETWEEN:
PAN VALI,AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESSR/O. BEHIND RAMA TALKISS.R. NAGAR, HOSPET,BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,PSI EXTENSION POLICE STATION,HOSPET, REPRESENTED BYSPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.1352/2012(CRIME NO.16/2012) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THEADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
33
IN CRL.P. NO. 100444/2014:BETWEEN
PAN VALIAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: BEHIND RAMA TALKIES,S.R.NAGAR, HOSPET,DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI T.B.DAM POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.1237/2013(CRIME NO.31/2012) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THEADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATION,HOSPET, REPRESENTED BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.900/2012(CRIME NO.46/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
35
IN CRL.P. NO. 100446/2014:BETWEEN
PAN VALIAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: S.R.NAGAR,HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATION,HOSPET, REPRESENTED BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.259/2013(CRIME NO.200/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
36
IN CRL.P. NO. 100447/2014:BETWEEN
PAN VALIAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: S.R.NAGAR,HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI EXTENSION POLICE STATION,HOSPET, REPRESENTED BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.809/2011(CRIME NO.02/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THEADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
37
IN CRL.P. NO. 100448/2014:BETWEEN
PAN VALI @ VALI @ SHABSHVALIS/O. LATE. KHAJAHUSSAINAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: BEHIND RAMA TALKIESS.R.NAGAR,HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATION,HOSPET, REPRESENTED BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.1080/2013(CRIME NO.143/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
38
IN CRL.P. NO. 100449/2014:BETWEEN:
PAN VALI @ PASHAVALIAGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,R/O: S.R.NAGAR, NOORANI MASJID,HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATION,HOSPET, REPRESENTED BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.123/2014(CRIME NO.256/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
39
IN CRL.P. NO. 100456/2014:BETWEEN
S.MOHAMOOD S/O. SABJANSABAGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSR/O. SGT MANZIL, D NO. 1124/A619/24 WARD, SRISANKAL ROADGAVISIDDESHWARA NAGAR,HOSPET, BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V. M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATIONHOSPET, R/BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.1626/2013(CRIME NO.221/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(1) (a) (iii) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
40
IN CRL.P. NO. 100457/2014:BETWEEN
S.MOHAMOOD S/O. SABJANSABAGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSR/O. SGT MANZIL, D NO. 1124/A619/24 WARD, SRISANKAL ROADGAVISIDDESHWARA NAGAR,HOSPET, BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V. M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATIONHOSPET, R/BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.796/2012(CRIME NO.48/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
41
IN CRL.P. NO. 100458/2014:BETWEEN
S.MOHAMOOD S/O. SABJANSABAGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSR/O. SGT MANZIL, D NO. 1124/A619/24 WARD, SRISANKAL ROADGAVISIDDESHWARA NAGAR,HOSPET, BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V. M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATIONHOSPET, R/BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.842/2012(CRIME NO.114/2011) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
42
IN CRL.P. NO. 100459/2014:BETWEEN
S.MOHAMOOD S/O. SABJANSABAGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSR/O. SGT MANZIL, D NO. 1124/A619/24 WARD, SRISANKAL ROADGAVISIDDESHWARA NAGAR,HOSPET, BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V. M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATIONHOSPET, R/BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.1505/2013(CRIME NO.185/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
43
IN CRL.P. NO. 100460/2014:BETWEEN
S.MOHAMOOD S/O. SABJANSABAGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSR/O. SGT MANZIL, D NO. 1124/A619/24 WARD, SRISANKAL ROADGAVISIDDESHWARA NAGAR,HOSPET, BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY. SRI.V. M. SHEELVANT, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAPSI TOWN POLICE STATIONHOSPET, R/BY SPPHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGSAGAINST PETITIONER INITIATED IN C.C.NO.1625/2013(CRIME NO.242/2013) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HOSPET, FOR THEOFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OFKARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963.
44
IN CRL.P. NO. 100891/2014BETWEEN
MOIN BASHA KURNOOLIS/O LATE HAJI ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,R/O D. NO.19, W.NO. 28,MORE GALLI, COWL BAZAAR,BELLARY. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BY COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION,BELLARY, REPRESENTED BYPUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED30.12.2011 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.378/2011 BY THECOWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BELLARY ANDSUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INC.C.NO.259/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVILJUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, AGAINST THEPETITIONER.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEENRESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.04.2014, COMING ONFOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THECOURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
45
O R D E R
All the above said 43 Criminal Petitions are
clubbed and taken up together for the purpose of
convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and legal
implications involved in these cases, they are
conveniently disposed of by this common judgment
since identical questions of law have been raised in
these Petitions.
2. Before adverting to the factual and legal matrix
of these cases, I feel it is just and necessary to place on
record a word of appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Sri Sheelvant, learned counsel for the
petitioners in the above said cases, Sri Shivraj and as
well Sri Banakar, learned Addl. SPP and though not
connected to these cases Sri Gundawade Advocate and
standing counsel for Lokayukta for having assisted this
46
Court with all relevant laws and as well the relevant
judgments of the different High Courts.
3. I feel it is just and appropriate to begin this
judgment with the concept of “Rule of Law”. Our
democratic polity under the Constitution, is based on
the concept of “Rule of law” which we have adopted and
given to ourselves serving as an aorta in the anatomy of
our democratic system, in upholding and respecting
supremacy of law in our Country.
4. Everyone whether individually or collectively is
questionable under the supremacy of law. Whoever he
may be, howsoever high, powerful, he is under the laws
of the Country. When we recognize the laws so powerful
than any other power in the country, such laws to be
adhered to by one and all, and it is the fundamental
duty of the courts to zealously safe guard the interest of
47
the citizens of the country protecting their rights
guaranteed under the Constitution and other enacted
laws for the time being in force.
5. At the outset, the factual matrix of these cases
are relevant before enumerating and answering the legal
questions raised by the learned counsels for the
petitioners and lengthy arguments advanced on both
the sides.
6. Different Police stations particularly by name
Cowl Bazaar, Bruce pet, Gandhinagar, APMC Yard,
Bellary Rural and Extension Police in Bellary, TB Dam
Police and Town Police Station, Hospet in Bellary
District (Respondents in the above said cases) have on
different dates, on receiving credible information that
some people were indulged in playing ‘Matka’ at
several areas situated within the jurisdiction of the
48
above said Police Stations, conducted raids along with
their respective police staff and panch witnesses.
During the course of investigation, the police have
arrested some of the accused persons and seized some
articles which were used for the purpose of playing the
said game of ‘Matka’ and thereafter, registered cases
respectively and specifically u/s.78(3) of the Karnataka
Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘K.P Act’ for short.
After, due investigation on different dates, the respective
police have submitted charge sheets against the
accused (petitioners herein) for the offence specifically
under Section 78 (3) of the K.P Act.
7. As could be seen from the records, in some
of the cases, the accused have pleaded guilty and fine
had been imposed by the Court. (Who are all not before
this court in these petitions?) In some of the cases
cognizance being taken, the matters are pending before
49
the jurisdictional magistrate and summons were issued
to some of the accused and in some of the cases,
accused persons appeared and enlarged on bail. In
some of the cases, plea of the accused have been
recorded and some of the cases were set down for
evidence. It appears, in none of the cases where
petitioners are the accused, the trial has neither begun
nor concluded. In this background, the petitioners have
approached this court challenging the very investigation
done by the police and charge sheet filed against the
petitioners and cognizance taken by the Courts, as ab-
initio-void because of the non-performance of the
statutory duties by the Investigating officers.
8. The learned counsels appearing for the
petitioners strenuously argued before this Court raising
several important legal issues which are as follows:
50
(1) Section 78(3) of KP Act, which is a non-
cognizable offence, under which a
credible information was received by
the Police and FIR was registered and
investigation has been done by the
police, are all fettered by Sec.155 (2) of
the Cr.P.C and the entire proceedings
are vitiated by serious illegality as the
investigation done by the police is
without the permission of the
Jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore,
the proceedings are liable to be
quashed.
(2) The defect of non-taking of permission
u/s.155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is not
curable u/s.460 (b) of Cr.P.C.
(3) The charge sheets submitted by the
51
Police cannot be treated as complaints
u/s.2 (d) of the Cr.PC.
(4) The respondent – Police are not
empowered to investigate the matter as
no general or special order u/s.81 of
the KP Act has been taken as Sec.78(3)
also falls under the purview of Section
81 of the KP Act. The officer not below
the rank of Sub-Inspector, who is
empowered by a general order in
writing or authorized in each case by a
special order, is only entitled to search
and seize any incriminating articles
used for the purpose of committing the
offence even u/s.78(3) of the Act.
9. Sri Banakar, learned Addl. S.P.P. and Sri
Gundawade learned Advocate have submitted their
52
arguments, countering the legal issues raised by the
counsel for the petitioners which are enumerated below:
(1) Though Section 78(3) of KP Act is a non-
cognizable offence, under Schedule II of
Cr.P.C, nevertheless, the Police are
empowered to arrest the accused involved
in such offences u/s.88 of the KP Act.
Therefore, the said offence is deemed to
be a cognizable offence. Hence, no
permission or warrant is required as
contemplated u/s.155 (2) of the Cr.PC.
(2) The KP Act is a special Act. As per Sec.4
& 5 of Cr.P.C. Special Act overrides the
general law i.e. Cr.PC.
(3) There is no necessity for issuing any
general or special in writing order u/s.81
of the Act, because Sec.81 only refers to
entry, search etc., by the Police Officers
in gaming-house not with reference to
any public street, thorough fare or any
53
place as referred to in Section 78(3) of the
KP Act.
10. Bearing in mind the above said contentions,
this court has to find out whether the court can quash
the proceedings on the above said grounds. The entire
matter revolves around three important aspects which
are to be adjudicated by this Court are as follows:
POINT NO.1:
Whether Sec.78(3) of the K.P. Act, is a
cognizable offence or non cognizable offence,
in view of the power of arrest without a
warrant provided under section 88 of the said
Act.?
POINT NO 2.
Whether in this case, investigation of
the cases under section 78(3) of the K.P. Act
and all further proceedings before the court
54
are vitiated by incurable illegalities or
defects for want of permission to investigate
the case by the competent Magistrate
u/s.155 (2) of the Cr.P.C.?
POINT NO 3
Whether the reports (Charge Sheets) of
the Police Officers with regard to non
cognizable offences in the above cases, can
be treated as complaints under section 2(d)
of the Cr.PC. If so, under what
circumstances.?
11. The points raised above involve
interpretation of provisions of Section 2(c) and (d) of
Cr.PC with explanation along with Schedule I and II
appended to Cr.PC. and also Section 78(3) and 88 of
the KP Act.
12. Before interpreting a statute, Court should
bear in mind that, a statute is an authentic document
55
containing the intention and expression of the will of the
legislature. The function of the Court is to interpret
that document according to the intent of the legislature
that made it. The court cannot resile from that
function, however ambiguous or difficult the application
of the words of the statute or the Act may be. The Court
is bound to make its endeavor to place some meaning,
upon them. In doing so, the Court should bear in mind,
that when the question arises as to the meaning of
certain provisions in a statute, it is not only legitimate
but proper to read those provisions in their context.
The context means, the statute as a whole, the previous
statute if any, or any other connecting statutes in pari-
materia, the general scope of the statute and the
specific and special intention of the legislature, every
clause of a statute should be construed with reference
to the context and other clauses of the Act, as far as
56
possible, to make a provision consistent with the entire
enactment or series of statutes, or with other relevant
statutes relating to the subject matter.
13. It is also a fundamental principle of
interpretation of statutes that, the words of the statute,
when there is any doubt about their meaning, are to be
understood in the sense in which they best harmonize
with the subject of the enactment and the object of the
Legislature has in view. In order to eradicate the
anomaly regarding the doubt about the meaning of a
provision in a statute, if the choice is between two
interpretations the narrower of which would fail to
achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, one
should avoid a construction which would reduce the
legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder
construction based on the intention of the legislature to
bring the effective and intended result. Where
57
alternative constructions are equally open, that
alternative is to be chosen which harmonizes with other
statutes and consistent with smooth working of the
entire system which the statute purports to be
regulating, and that alternative has to be rejected which
will introduce uncertainty, friction, or confusion into the
working of the system.
14. In this backdrop, now, I will take up the
above said points one by one:
POINT NO.1:
15. The factual matrix as I have already quoted
indisputably shows that the respondent - police have
received the credible information on different dates that
some people are playing ‘Matka’ game at different
places. It appears, after receiving such credible
information, u/s.78(3) of the K.P. Act, the police have
58
proceeded to the spot. The records disclose that the
police went to the spot and raided the said places,
arrested some of the accused persons, seized certain
articles used for the commission of the offence and
thereafter came to the Police Station, registered the
FIRs. u/s.78(3) of KP Act and, submitted the charge
sheets on different dates. This clearly indicates that
soon after receiving the credible information, even after
raid, registration of the FIR, filing of the Charge Sheets,
there is no change in the nature of the offence
committed by the accused persons i.e. to say u/s.78 (3)
of the KP Act. As per the said Act, Sec.78(3) is
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 3
months or with fine, which may extend to Rs. Three
hundred or with both.
16. Now, the Court has to ascertain whether
Section 78(3) of the KP Act is a cognizable or non
59
cognizable offence in order to attract Section 155 (2) of
Cr.PC. For this, it is just and necessary to have the
definition of cognizable offence and non cognizable
offences with reference to the Schedule I & II appended
to the Code.
Section 2(c) of the Code defines
‘cognizable offence’ means an offence for
which, and ‘cognizable case’ means a case in
which, a Police Officer may, in accordance
with the First Schedule or under any other
law for the time being in force, arrest without
warrant;
Section 2(l) defines ‘non-cognizable
offence’ – means an offence for which and
‘non-cognizable case’ means a case in which,
a Police Officer has no authority to arrest
without warrant.
17. These two provisions have to be read along
with Schedule I and II appended to the Code. The I
60
Schedule classifies the offences and also declares which
offences are cognizable or non-cognizable. The
explanatory note to the I Schedule, also reads as
follows:
(1) In regard to offences under the
Indian Penal Code, the entries in the second
and third columns against a section the
number of which is given in the first column
are not intended as the definition of, and the
punishment prescribed for, the offences in the
IPC, but merely as indication of the substance
of the section.
(2) In this schedule, (i) the expressions
‘Magistrate of the First Class’ and ‘Any
Magistrate’ include Metropolitan Magistrates
but not Executive Magistrates; (ii) the word
‘cognizable’ stands for ‘a police officer may
arrest without warrant’, and (iii) the word
‘non-cognizable’ stands for a police officer
shall not arrest without warrant”.
61
Schedule-I in fact, gives provisions at column No.1, brief
definition at column No.2, punishment prescribed at
column No.3, whether it is cognizable or non-cognizable
at column No.4, whether the offence is bailable or non
bailable at column No.5 and offence is triable by which
court at column No.6.
18. In the I Schedule, depending upon the
gravity of the offence, irrespective of the period of
punishment prescribed, the offences are categorized as
cognizable or non-cognizable offences. On perusal of
the I Schedule, some of the offences though punishable
with more than three years of imprisonment are made
as non-cognizable and some of the offences though the
punishment prescribed is less than three years are
made as cognizable offences. Therefore, irrespective of
62
the punishment prescribed, considering the nature and
gravity of offences, the offences are classified as
cognizable or non-cognizable offences.
19. In this background, Schedule II play a very
important role so far as this case is concerned. The II
Schedule refers to ‘classification of offences under other
laws’. This schedule comprises of four columns. The
First column refers to the punishment prescribed under
other laws, second column refers to whether the
offences are cognizable or non cognizable, third column
refers to whether the offences are bailable or non
bailable and fourth column refers to which court has
jurisdiction to try the case. As per this schedule, if the
offences are punishable under any other penal laws for
the time being in force, imprisonment for more than
seven years, and imprisonment for more than three
63
years and up-to seven years are categorized as
cognizable offences. If the punishment is less than
three years or with fine only, they are categorized as
non-cognizable offences.
20. On combined reading of the provisions of
Sec.2(c) and 2(e) read with Schedule I & II appended
thereto, it clears the doubt, in so far as the other penal
laws are concerned, the offences which are punishable
with imprisonment less than three years and fine only
are categorized as non-cognizable offences. Insofar as it
relates to cognizable offences are concerned, the Police
Officers can arrest the accused without warrant in
accordance with the Schedules or under any other laws
for the time being in force. So far as non cognizable
offences, if it falls under II Schedule, the Police Officer
has no authority to arrest any person without warrant
64
and investigate the case without permission under
section 155(2) of the Code. The definition clause under
Section 2(c) and 2(e) of Cr.PC as per the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be read
independently or in isolation, if they are harmoniously
read together in combination with each other that would
give a clear indication that mere power to arrest the
accused persons unless the offence is categorized as a
cognizable offence under I Schedule, the offences which
are categorized as non-cognizable offences under II
Schedule cannot be converted into or deemed to be a
cognizable offence. Though Section 88 of the KP Act
empowers the police to arrest a person without warrant
for the offence u/s.78(3) of the KP Act, it cannot be said
that such non-cognizable offence can be deemed to be
considered as cognizable offence.
21. In order to thrash out whether the power to
65
arrest given to the police under a special Act can
convert a non-cognizable offence into a cognizable
offence. And if so, whether the schedule II appended to
the Cr.PC becomes redundant by virtue of the
empowerment under any other laws to the police to
arrest a person without a warrant. This aspect of the
matter in my opinion leads to a detailed perseverance of
legal pronouncements and the law on this particular
point. Therefore it is just and necessary for me to go
through several rulings of the different High Courts,
which have different views insofar as the legal aspects
are concerned.
22. In the case of State vs. Bibi Rehman,
reported in 1956 Saurashtra 116 (AIR V 43 C 40
DEC.) the Sourashtra High Court, at paragraph 7 held
as follows:
66
“Sec.18 of Sourashtra Prevention of
Prohibition Act is the only section which gives
the police power to arrest without a warrant
and it is legitimate to assume that in other
cases, the Act did not intend to confer that
power upon them. If so, all offences under
the said Act, except those to the extent
mentioned in Sec.18 are non-cognizable
offences notwithstanding schedule II of the
Cr.P.C. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions
of Sec.155 (2) of the Cr.P.C, the police cannot
investigate such offences except under an
order of Magistrate.”
23. This ruling indicates that under any other
law, if the police are empowered to arrest a person
without warrant, such offences, irrespective of the
schedule appended to the Cr.P.C can be classified or
considered as deemed cognizable offences.
24. In Maganlal Bagdi and Others vs. Emperor
67
AIR 1934 Nagpur 71, at page 75, the Nagpur High
Court has held that –
“The words “or under any other law for
the time being in force” in Section 4(e) of
Cr.PC, have reference to such offences which
are punishable with imprisonment for less
than three years, but are specified as
offences, for which, the police may arrest
without a warrant, i.e. offences which but for
the special provision, would not under the
Code of Criminal Procedure be cognizable
offences.”
25. This ruling also enunciates, that if the
special provision empowers a Police Officer to arrest
without a warrant, then such offences can be
categorized as cognizable offence irrespective of
anything contained in the Cr.PC. The Nagpur High
Court while dealing with Sec.95(f) of the Arms Act, has
considered the said provision in consonance with the
68
definition of ‘cognizable offence’ under the Code.
26. In the case of Maroti Bansi Teli Vs.
Emperor reported in AIR 1939 Nagpur, 95, the Court
held that –
“If the power to arrest without a
warrant is limited to any particular class of
Police Officer, that does not prevent the
offence being regarded as a cognizable one
though the offence u/s.34 of the KP Act is
punishable with imprisonment of less than
three years.”
27. On reading of the above said decisions, it
gives a broad meaning that if the Police Officer is
otherwise empowered to arrest a person without
warrant in connection with an offence under any other
laws for the time being in force, though the offence is
punishable with less than three years and falls under II
69
Schedule of the code, it should be treated as a
cognizable offence only. If the above said views are
taken as a preposition giving the correct law, then in
this case, though the offence u/s. 78(3) of the KP Act,
which is only punishable with imprisonment, which
may extend to Three months or with fine, has to be
treated as a cognizable offence as the Police Officer is
empowered to arrest a person without a warrant as
empowered u/s.88 of the KP Act.
28. Therefore, it is just and necessary to refer to
the other rulings which gives contrary opinion, before
arriving at a certain and definite conclusion.
29. In a decision between Public Prosecutor
Vs. A.V. Ramaiah, reported in 1958 Crl.LJ, 737, the
division bench of A.P. High Court held that –
“The offence u/s.12 of the Madras
70
Gaming Act, was not a cognizable offence
within the meaning of Sec. 4(1)(f) of the
Cr.P.C, 1898 inasmuch as Sec.13 of the said
code, did not confer an un-restricted power of
arrest on the Police Officer, but gave him only
a limited power, in that he could arrest
without a warrant, only if the offence was
committed in his view, but not otherwise.
Their Lordship’s observed that it was not for
all offences u/s.12, but only for some offence
that a Police Officer might arrest without a
warrant. It therefore, followed that an offence
u/s.12 of the Act was not a cognizable
offence”.
30. This ruling clearly emphasizes that the
Court has to see the circumstances under which the
Police Officers can arrest a person without a warrant. If
it is not a general power given to the police and the said
power is a limited power, only under special
circumstances to some of the offences under the special
71
Act, depending upon the nature of the offence
committed, then such power cannot be called as general
power and such power of arrest without warrant cannot
change the nature of the case that is a non-cognizable
into a cognizable offence.
31. In a case between State of West Bengal Vs.
Joginder Mallick, reported in AIR 1979 Crl.LJ 539,