Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines for magistrates when ordering investigation of non-cognizable offences

The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines for magistrates to follow when granting permission to the police to investigate non-cognizable offences upon request by either the police or a complainant [Vijesh Pillai vs The State of Karnataka and Anr.].Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasised that allowing the registration of a first information report (FIR) should not be treated as a frolicsome act since a magistrate cannot pass orders that do not bear a semblance of application of mind.."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," the Court's order stated..The judge also remarked that magistrates have contributed to the docket explosion in the High Court by passing orders without applying their mind.The Court noted that a huge amount of litigation in the form of pleas to quash criminal cases under Section 482 (dealing with inherent powers of High Courts) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), had been generated in the High Court due to such callous actions by the magistrates."Therefore, the learned magistrates who pass such orders have contributed/ contributing to the 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. It is high time now, that the magistrates should mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions received and then pass appropriate orders," the Court said..The judge further recalled that the Court had previously urged magistrates to refrain from permitting the registration of first information reports (FIRs) by stating, at the stage of requisition, that the plea has been "permitted," or by using the terms "perused permitted," or even "permitted registration of FIR." Such a practice lacked any application of mind, the Court opined..The Court was dealing with a plea to quash case involving a charge under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..During the course of deciding on the plea, the Court referred to the 2016 judgment in Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs State of Karnataka, wherein a case was quashed on the ground that the permission given to investigate the case had lacked an application of mind. The Court observed that magistrates still have not changed their attitude. .The Court proceeded to remand the present case back to the magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations laid down in course of the High Court's order..Pertinently, the Court invoked its powers under Section 483 (duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates) of the CrPC to issue the following guidelines to magistrates:.(i) Magistrates shall record as to who has submitted the requisition for investigation, whether it is the informant or the Station House Officer, and make an endorsement of receipt of requisition in a separate order sheet.(ii) Magistrates shall not pass any order if the complaint is not enclosed to the requisition.(iii) 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. If it is not a fit case to be investigated, the magistrates shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. The order of the magistrates shall bear application of mind, not by rendering a detailed order or detailed inquiry at that stage, but it shall bear application of mind.(iv) Magistrates should forthwith stop using the words "permitted", "perused permitted" or "perused requisition permitted registration of FIR" on the requisition itself. Magistrates shall 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 magistrates shall contain all the aforesaid. Any deviation from what is directed will be construed as the magistrates contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and it would be viewed seriously..The Court explained that these guidelines have become necessary as it had quashed orders by magistrates in many cases, wherein permission was granted to register FIRs without any application of mind. .[Read Order]