1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/A.1 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani at Karimnagar.

2. On the report given by the defacto complainant, the Police of Koyyur P.S registered a case in Crime No.8/2015 and after investigation laid charge-sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sec.290 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. The charge-sheet allegations are that on 17.02.2015 at about 7:30 p.m, the complainant who is a resident of Ansanpalli Thanda and an auto driver found that there was no current in his ward. There are two wards in his Thanda and each having one transformer. Three months back transformer in his ward was burnt and ever since current was supplied from the transformer of the other ward. Due to heavy load, sometimes fuse of the transformer goes off and the people of complainant’s ward would go and fix a new fuse. Hence on finding that there was no current in his ward, the complainant went to the transformer located in Ward No.8 to check whether fuse wire was burnt. While he was checking the transformer, A.1 to A.3 came there and objected him for drawing current from their transformer and asked him to get the transformer in his ward repaired and abused him in filthy language and threw him on the ground and bet him with hands and fists and also dragged him on the C.C road and thereby skin was peeled and he suffered bleeding injuries.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/A.1 sought for quashment on the main plank of argument that even if the charge-sheet allegations are uncontroverted, the prosecution is not maintainable for the reason that even according to the I.O, the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature and admittedly in this case the accused have not used any weapon or instrument for causing injuries to the complainant and they only allegedly bet him with hands and legs and dragged him on the road and that being so, an offence under Sec.323 IPC may at best be maintainable but not Sec.324 IPC and since the offences under Sec.290 and 323 IPC are non-cognizable offences, the police cannot investigate those offences without permission of the Magistrate under Sec.155(2) of Cr.P.C. Since the investigation completed and charge-sheet was laid without such permission, the entire proceedings are vitiated and thereby the accused deserve quashing of proceedings.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on the submission that originally the case was registered under Sec.290 & 324 IPC i.e, for cognizable offence and investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was laid for the same offences and in such an event, even if at later stage it is found that the offence committed was only a non-cognizable offence, by that count, the proceedings will not be vitiated.

5. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is:

“Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?”

6. POINT: As can be seen from the charge-sheet, on receiving the report from the complainant, the police registered a case in Crime No.8/2015 under Sec.290 and 324 IPC. Sec.290 is admittedly a non-cognizable offence but Sec.324 is a cognizable offence. Under Sec.155(4) Cr.P.C, where a case relates to two or more offences of which atleast one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are cognizable. Perhaps going by this provision, the Investigating Officer thought that since one of the offences in FIR is a cognizable offence, he can proceed with the investigation without the necessity of obtaining permission from the concerned Magistrate.

Then Sec.324 IPC reads thus:

“Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means: Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause