Karnataka High Court quashes complaint by Kerala gold smuggling case accused Swapna Suresh against Action OTT CEO Vijesh Pillai

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against CEO of video streaming platform Action OTT, Vijesh Pillai registered by the Bengaluru Police on a complaint by Swapna Suresh, the main accused in the Kerala gold smuggling case of 2020. [Sri Vijesh Pillai v. The State of Karnataka and anr].Justice M Nagaprasanna found that the magistrate court had not applied its mind in permitting the registration of an FIR in this case."Except saying perused the requisition and permitted investigation or registration of FIR, there is no indication of any application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate," the order stated..On March 11, Swapna Suresh registered a complaint against Pillai alleging that he had threatened and intimidated her. Since the alleged offence was non-cognisable, the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) sought permission from a magistrate to register the case and investigate the offence. The magistrate, without recording prima facie reasons, allowed the crime to be registered and investigated. Aggrieved, Pillai moved the High Court..Pillai challenged the magistrate's order on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that it was the responsibility of the complainant, and not the SHO, to seek permission from the magistrate to register a non-cognizable offence. Secondly, he claimed that the magistrate had granted permission without providing a recorded reason..On the other hand, the State contended that the magistrate was not required to pass an elaborate order to permit registration of an FIR..The Court highlighted that allowing the registration of an 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.".It also remarked that magistrates have contributed to the docket explosion in the High Court by passing orders without applying their mind..Justice Nagaprasanna further recalled that the Court had previously urged magistrates to refrain from permitting the registration of 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 ultimately quashed the FIR and sent the case back to the magistrate with instructions to issue appropriate orders in compliance with the law, taking into account the observations made in the High Court's order..Significantly, the Court has also issued guidelines to be followed by magistrates when authorizing investigation in non-cognizable offences..Pillai was represented by Advocate Satyanarayana Chalke S. High Court Government Pleader Mahesh Shetty represented the State..[Read Order]