NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved