Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Vijesh Pillai, the CEO of Action OTT, a popular video streaming platform. The FIR had been registered by the Bengaluru Police based on a complaint filed by Swapna Suresh, the main accused in the Kerala gold smuggling case of 2020. Justice M Nagaprasanna, while delivering the verdict, found that the magistrate court had not applied its mind properly in permitting the registration of the FIR.

According to the order, the magistrate court simply stated that it had "perused the requisition and permitted investigation or registration of FIR," without providing any indication of having applied its mind to the matter. This lack of proper consideration by the magistrate led to the aggrieved Pillai approaching the High Court to challenge the order.

Pillai raised two grounds for his challenge. Firstly, he argued that it was the responsibility of the complainant, Swapna Suresh, and not the Station House Officer (SHO), to seek permission from the magistrate to register a non-cognizable offence. Secondly, he contended that the magistrate had granted permission without providing any recorded reasons for doing so.

On the other hand, the State argued that the magistrate was not required to pass an elaborate order for permitting the registration of an FIR. However, the High Court emphasized that allowing the registration of an FIR should not be considered a casual or thoughtless act, as magistrates cannot pass orders without a proper application of mind.

The Court expressed concern that magistrates had contributed to the overload of cases in the High Court by granting permission without due consideration. It reiterated its previous urging for magistrates to refrain from allowing the registration of FIRs using vague phrases such as "permitted" or "perused permitted," as such practices lacked the required application of mind.

In its ruling, the High Court quashed the FIR against Vijesh Pillai and directed the magistrate to issue appropriate orders in compliance with the law, taking into account the observations made in the Court's order. The Court also issued guidelines for magistrates to follow when authorizing investigations in non-cognizable offences.

Vijesh Pillai was represented by Advocate Satyanarayana Chalke S., while the High Court Government Pleader Mahesh Shetty represented the State in this case.

This decision by the Karnataka High Court serves as a reminder of the importance of magistrates applying their minds properly before permitting the registration of FIRs. It also highlights the need for clarity and proper reasoning in such matters to ensure fair and just outcomes in the legal system.

Case Title: Sri Vijesh Pillai versus The State of Karnataka and another.

Click Here To Read