Application Of Mind Necessary In Law & Not Application Of Ink: Karnataka HC Expresses Concern Over Magistrates Callously Passing Orders U/S.155(2) of CrPC

The Petitioner-MLA MT Krishnappa approached the High Court calling in question the proceedings arising out of a criminal case registered under Sections 34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna asserted, “ It is rather shocking that Magistrates, while granting permission, do not apply their mind and callously grant permission to register the crime while passing orders under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.”

Advocate Nandini B represented the Petitioners while Addl. SPP B.N. Jagadeesha represented the Respondents.

The second respondent-complainant, claiming to be the president of a political party, alleged that the petitioners on losing their elections sought to undermine the dignity of the party by derogatory statements or intimidating the complainant. Since the offence was only for intimidation, as obtaining under Section 504 of the IPC, the police on receipt of the complaint rendered a non cognizable report and placed the complaint before theMagistrate for obtaining permission to register a crime on a non cognizable offence under section 504 read with 34 of the IPC. The concerned Court registered the case under Sections 504 and 34 of the IPC and issued summons to the petitioners. The issuance of summons was what had driven the petitioners to the High Court.

The Magistrate, in this case, recorded that the Police Officer received the information about a non-cognizable offence, then necessarily had to seek permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed with the investigation. The Bench noticed that the so-called application of mind by the Magistrate was only in the words "By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law."

“The afore quoted words of the learned Magistrate can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears application of mind”, the Bench said while also adding, “...what is required in law, while the Magistrate grants permission to register a crime, is application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an order that has even a semblance of application of mind.”

The Bench was of the view that these acts of passing orders under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., which bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in docket explosion before this Court.

“Therefore, time and again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge in passing of such orders. The Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act”, it added.Thus, noting that the order in the present case was one with no reasons, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the Proceedings.

The High Court concluded the matter by saying, “Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on application of mind. It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.”

Cause Title: Sri Krishnappa M.T. v. State Of Karnataka [Neutral Citation- 2024:KHC:44844]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Nandini B, Bhargav G

Respondents: Addl. SPP B.N. Jagadeesha

Click here to read/download Order