3 March 2022 8:37 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permission granted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Member of Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation of People Act. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegating the matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "In accordance with the...
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permission granted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Member of Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation of People Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegating the matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "In accordance with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further."
It added, "Clearly, the said procedure that has been laid down in the judgement referred to above has not been followed in the present case. In light of the same, the endorsement of the Magistrate dated 18.04.2019 is set aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of the informant being referred to the Magistrate in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C."
The petitioner had approached the court seeking to quash the proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No.51/2019. Surya had also sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.07.2019 and also the entire proceedings arising out of C.C.No.3077/2020 pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
It was alleged that the 2nd respondent (OFFICER (FLYING SQUAD)) had on 17.04.2019, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent on the same day. The allegation made out was that one Narayanappa had got printed about 2000 copies of pamphlets on behalf of the petitioner herein who was the BJP candidate and distributed the same without mentioning name and address of the printer and publisher and accordingly, committed offence under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and action was sought for as regards the said offence.
It was submitted that information was then made out to the Magistrate as per Annexure-C requesting for permission to commence investigation. On the basis of written requisition, Magistrate has endorsed the word 'permitted'.
Advocate S.S. SRINIVASA RAO appearing for the petitioner contended that such endorsement by the magistrate is not in consonance with the requirement under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and is clearly in violation of the directions passed by this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State Of Karnataka.
Further, the offences made out in the FIR were 127(2) and 127A of the Act and 171F of IPC, the charge sheet that came to be filed after investigation only made out an offence of Section 127A of the Act. Thus the proceedings consequent to the permission given by the Magistrate requires to be set aside on the sole ground that the order is not in consonance with the requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Finally it was said even on merits, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the requirement under Section 127A is only as regards to the person who prints and cannot in any way lead to proceedings to be carried out as against the petitioner who was the candidate.
The bench on relegating the matter for fresh consideration said, "As per the observation in sub para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the judgement extracted above (Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State Of Karnataka), the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether permission for investigation needs to be granted."
It added, "Accordingly, it would not be appropriate in the present proceedings to address the other contentions raised by the petitioner as regards to the proceedings to be bad in law as ingredients of Section 127A of the Act are not satisfied. The said aspect, needless to state, is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate before granting permission by passing an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C."
Following which the court disposed of the petition.
Case Title: L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka
Case no: Criminal Petition No.9961/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
Date of Order: 15th Day Of February, 2022
Appearance: Advocate S.S. Srinivasa Rao, a/w advocate Sudharsan Suresh, for petitioner
Advocate Vishwa Murthy for respondents
Click Here To Read/Download Order