Magistrates Casually Permitting Police Investigation Into Non-Cognizable Offences Generates Huge Litigation: Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines

The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for Judicial Magistrates to be followed strictly while issuing orders granting permission to the police to investigate non-cognizable cases on requisition made to it either by the police or the complainant.

The court has issued a warning to the Magistrate courts that any deviation 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.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This Court in a plethora of cases has been emphasising the fact that Magistrates should not permit registration of FIR by usage of words “permitted”, “perused permitted” or even “permitted registration of FIR”. All these illustrations of granting permission on the face of it suffers from the want of application of mind.”

Court said permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a "frolicsome act" on the part of the Magistrate. "The Magistrate exercises power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. In doing so, it cannot be that he could pass orders which do not bear a semblance of application of mind.”

Referring to judgments of the High court passed since 2016, where cases have been quashed noting there is non application of judicious mind by the Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the bench said,

“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.”

Indicating that there has been an increase in litigation at the High Court, the bench said “The learned Magistrates who pass such orders have contributed/contributing to docket explosion before this Court. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrates are contributing to the pendency of such cases in the judiciary itself.”

Accordingly, the bench was of the view that it is high time that learned Magistrates should mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions received and then pass appropriate orders. Exercising its power of superintendence under Section 483 CrPC, the bench issued the following directions/guidelines for Magistrates:

(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 has asked the registry to circulate the order to all the Magistrates in the State for their guidance and its strict compliance.

The directions were passed while allowing a petition filed by one Vijesh Pillai and quashing the registration of a crime under section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code against him.

The court remitted back the matter to the magistrate court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations/guidelines laid down in the course of the order.

Also Read: Investigation Of Non-Cognizable Offences: Karnataka HC Issues Directions

Case Title: Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case N0: WRIT PETITION No.11186 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229

Date of Order: 16-06-2023

Appearance: Advocate Satyanarayana Chalke S, for petitioner.

HCGP Mahesh Shetty for R1.

Click Here To Read/Download Order