Order under challenge has been passed without assigning any reasons.

Questioning the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder, permission was granted to the police to conduct investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 120-B IPC which are non-cognizable, this Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the same on the ground that the said order was passed without application of mind. The facts in issue are as under :

On 08.10.2013 at about 2.30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanaguda Police Station, received a complaint from one Musunuri Srinivasa Rao, R/o.Flat No.505, H.No. 3-6-69, Venkatarama Towers, Basheerbagh, in which he alleged that his ex-employee S. Purnachandra Rao and S.Rajesh Kiran (petitioners herein) bore grudge against him and started threatening him with dire consequences if subsequent amount was not paid to them. He also suspects movement of suspicious persons around his Office. In view of the imminent threat to his life, a report was lodged before the Narayanguda Police Station, seeking action against the culprits.

Pursuant to the said report the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanaguda Police, requested the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to accord permission to register the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 120 B IPC, as the above offences are non-cognizable in nature. By an order, dated 09.10.2013 the learned Magistrate accorded permission to conduct investigation for the above mentioned offences. Challenging the said order, the present application is filed.

Relying upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar and Others Vs M.K. Aiyappa and another , Sajjal Agarwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another, Medwin Hospitals, rep., by its M.D., B. Kameswara Rao Vs State of A.P., Pollution Control Board , Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Kota Vs Shukla and Brothers, Union Bank of India and others Vs Jai Prakash Singh and another , the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that reasons are to be recorded showing application of mind while directing the police to investigate into the non-cognizable offences under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., failing which great prejudice would be caused to the accused.

Relying upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah & another Vs State of West Bengal and Kunhumuhammed Vs State of Kerala the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that no reasons are necessary while granting permission to register a crime. According to him, the reference made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and the permission granted under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., are quite distinct and different in nature. He strenuously contends that reasons are required to be given while refusing to give permission to register a crime and not while granting permission to register a crime. He further submits that the impugned order shows application of mind while granting permission to register the crime and as such, the same warrants no interference from this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The point for consideration is whether the impugned order warrants interference of the Court for not giving reasons while directing the police to investigate a non-cognizable offence.

In Anil Kumar and others Vs M.K.Aiyappa and another, the Apex Court while dealing with a reference made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., observed as under :

10. We may first examine whether the Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., could act in a mechanical or casual manner and go on with the complaint after getting the report.

11. The scope of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed Case examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) and held that where