Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Aboo Bakkar Siddiq and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. - (High Court of Karnataka) (13 Jun 2019)

When Act contemplates a particular procedure, police in exercise of their general powers under CrPC cannot usurp jurisdiction to register case and investigate matter

MANU/KA/3883/2019

Criminal

Petitioners are aggrieved by the prosecution initiated against them in Crime case for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 19 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Learned counsel for the Petitioners has put forth a plea that, the action initiated by the Respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Act. As per Section 19A of the said Act, the Court is debarred from taking cognizance of the offence under the Act except on a written complaint by the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority.

Records disclose that, the FIR is registered by Shanivara Santhe police on the basis of the written complaint received from the District Health Officer through post. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 7 and 19 of the Act and Section 420 of IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that, the Petitioners herein have been running a private clinic without obtaining licence from the competent authorities established under the said Act.

Though, Section 420 of IPC is incorporated in the FIR, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. The said section appears to have been incorporated only to assume jurisdiction on the Respondent police. In the absence of any allegations or material in support of the said charge, registration of FIR incorporating Section 420 of IPC is malafide and on that score, the action of the respondent has to be held as illegal.

Though the stage of taking cognizance by the Court has not yet reached, yet, in view of the above provision, the jurisdiction of the police to investigate into the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act based on the information lodged by a private person has been impliedly barred. The Act contemplates prosecution of the offenders for the violation of the provisions of the Act only in the manner provided under Section 19A of the Act.

When the Act contemplates a particular procedure, the police in exercise of their general powers under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) cannot usurp jurisdiction to register the case and investigate into the matter. Since the FIR in question is registered by the police contrary to Section 19A of the Act, the registration of the case and the consequent investigation thereon has to be held as illegal. The prosecution initiated against the Petitioners in Crime case for the alleged offences is quashed. Petition allowed.

Tags : FIR   REGISTRATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved