ORDER :

1. The challenge in this Crl. RC at the instance of petitioners/A1 to A4 is the order dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, according permission to investigate the offence under Section 182 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 127 of 2012 of Burgampahad PS.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) An official enquiry was conducted against one R. Ravishankar Ready, Former SDPO, Kothagudem and seven others, who were indulged in corrupt practices while discharging their official duties. Prior to conducting the official enquiry by Sri K. Pradeep Chandra, IAS, Inquiry Authority, Commissioner of Inquiry, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the-then Additional Superintendent of Police, Administration, Khammam, who during the course of such preliminary enquiry recorded the statements of petitioners/A1 to A4 and some others. During the course of official enquiry, the petitioners and others gave volte- face and did not support the version that was given by them before the Additional Superintendent of Police regarding the corrupt practices of the delinquent officials. On the contrary, the petitioners and others have given false statements to help corrupt delinquent officials. On account of the petitioners and others turning hostile, the Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, vide his letter dated 13.7.2013 in CA No. 2046/A6/2011 directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem to lodge complaint against them for the offence under Section 182 IPC and accordingly, on the instructions of Additional Superintendent of Police, the S.I. of Police, Burgampahad PS, lodged the report and the same was registered as Crime No. 127/2012 for the offence under Section 182 IPC against the petitioners. Since the offence alleged is a non-cognizable offence, the complainant sought for permission of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam in terms of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to investigate the matter. Learned Magistrate has passed the following impugned order:

"Heard and perused the record. Accorded permission to investigate within the purview of Section 155 Cr.P.C. vide separate proceedings."

Hence the instant Crl. RC by petitioners/A1 to A4.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The contention of the petitioners is twofold. Firstly, it is argued that as per Section 155 Cr.P.C. the police are not authorized to register FIR in respect of the information received by them which discloses the commission of a non-cognizable offence. On the other hand, the Station House Officer of concerned police station shall only enter the substance of the information in the General Diary and refer the informant to the concerned Magistrate and upon receiving the order from the concerned Magistrate only the police officer shall investigate into the matter. The next argument is that the learned Magistrate except according permission, did not pass any speaking order.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. The point for consideration is:

"Whether there are merits in the Crl. RC to allow?"

Point:

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side. Section 155 Cr.P.C. which is the bone of contention in this case, reads thus:

"Section 155 - Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases - (1) When information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf and refer, the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation