Karnataka High Court
Vijesh Pillai v. State of Karnataka & ors.
WRIT PETITION No.11186 OF 2023
Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
Decided On 16-06-2023
Facts of the case-
The petitioner, in this case, is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the accused. On 11-03-2023, the petitioner filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent, alleging that they have threatened and intimidated the petitioner. The complaint was brought to the attention of the K.R.Puram Police Station.
The Station House Officer then sought permission from the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru to register a crime under Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation. Since Section 506 of the IPC is a non-cognizable offense, the permission of the Magistrate was necessary according to Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.
After receiving the requisition, the learned Magistrate reviewed the documents and granted permission for the crime to be registered. Once the crime was officially registered, the petitioner approached this Court with a petition. The petitioner’s petition does not challenge the merits of the case, but rather questions the alleged lack of proper consideration by the learned Magistrate in granting permission.
Judgement
The court has issued strict guidelines for Judicial Magistrates regarding the granting of permission to investigate non-cognizable cases. The court has expressed concern over the careless actions of Magistrates, emphasizing that any deviation from the guidelines will be viewed seriously and may contribute to the already massive backlog of cases.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single judge bench, stated that the granting of permission to register an FIR should not be treated as a frivolous act. The Magistrates must apply their minds when exercising their power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. The court cited several cases since 2016 where orders permitting investigation were quashed due to a lack of judicious consideration by the Magistrates.
The court highlighted the excessive litigation arising from such orders lacking proper application of mind, which has burdened the High Court. It expressed disappointment that the Magistrates’ callous actions were contributing to the mounting backlog within the judiciary itself. Consequently, the court urged the Magistrates to mend their ways and carefully consider the requisitions before passing appropriate orders.
To address the issue, the court, exercising its power of superintendence under Section 483 CrPC, issued the following guidelines for Magistrates:
- The Magistrates must record who has submitted the requisition, whether it is the informant or the Station House Officer, and make an endorsement of receipt of the requisition on a separate order sheet.
- The Magistrates must not pass any order if the complaint is not enclosed with the requisition.
- The Magistrates should review and examine the contents of the requisition and form a prima facie opinion on whether it is a suitable case for investigation. If it is not, the Magistrates should reject the prayer made in the requisition. The order should demonstrate the application of mind, without requiring a detailed inquiry at that stage.
- The Magistrates should refrain from using words like “permitted,” “perused permitted,” or “perused requisition permitted registration of FIR” on the requisition itself. Instead, they should pass separate orders and maintain a distinct order sheet regarding the grant of permission. Granting permission directly on the requisition is against the law.
- The order of the Magistrates must include all the aforementioned points. Any deviation from these guidelines will be considered a callous action contributing to the backlog of cases and will be viewed seriously.
The court directed the registry to circulate the order to all Magistrates in the State, ensuring their strict compliance with the guidelines.
In the case at hand, the court allowed a petition filed by Vijesh Pillai and quashed the registration of a crime under Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against him. The court remitted the matter back to the magistrate court, instructing it to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law while considering the observations and guidelines set forth in the judgment.
Judgment- click here to review the judgment
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
