1. The petitioner, a Non Resident Indian, married Smt. Savita, daughter of the 3rd respondent, on 25.04.2008. Out of the wedlock, a son – Master Ishaan was born, on 21.11.2011, in the United States of America. The petitioner, his wife and the child came to Bengaluru on 06.02.2013. The petitioner alone returned to USA. Later, when the child was sought to be taken to USA by the petitioner, through his parents, Smt. Savita filed G&W No.5/2013 in the Family Court, Hubli. A memo having been filed that Smt. Savita got custody of the child with the police help, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Smt. Savita filed G & W No.13/2013 in the Family Court, Hubli, seeking declaration that she is the legal and total guardian of Master Ishaan and for issue of directions to the petitioner to handover the passport. An order dismissing I.A. filed for grant of temporary injunction having been passed by the Family Court, MFA No.101490/2014 was filed and an adinterim order was passed. On 14.07.2015, Master Ishaan having not been produced before the Court and a statement having been made that he has been admitted at Thathwadarshini Hospital, Hubli and the petitioner is at liberty to visit the hospital and see the condition of the child, suffering from suspected dengue fever, petitioner went to the hospital. An altercation having taken place between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, a complaint was lodged in the Gokul Road Police Station. The police registered a case in Crime No.92/2015 against the petitioner for the offences under Ss.506, 504 and 323 of IPC. Assailing the FIR submitted to the I Addl. JMFC, Hubli, W.P. No.108985/2015 was filed. Respondent No.2 having completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet vide Annexure – H and a memo having been filed, writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences under Ss.323, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered C.C. No.6507/2015 and issued NBW to the petitioner, arraigned as the accused, vide the order as at Annexure-K, this writ petition was filed to quash the charge-sheet vide Annexure-H and an endorsement of the police vide Annexure-J.

2. Respondent No.3 filed statement of objections. According to him, the petitioner caught hold of his neck, uttered filthy words and committed the assault at the hospital and hence, complaint was lodged before the 2nd respondent, who, having sought the ‘permission’ of the Magistrate and the ‘permission’ having been granted, investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed.

3. Heard Sri F.V. Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner, Sri Praveen K. Uppar, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned advocate for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

4. Upon receipt of the said complaint, police registered N.C. No.2/2015 for the offences under S.323, 504 and 506 of IPC. The offences being non cognizable, ‘permission’ of the Magistrate to undertake the investigation was sought by submitting Annexure-J. The same being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

5. On Annexure-J itself, the Magistrate having endorsed as ‘permitted’, the investigation was made and the charge-sheet was filed.

6. Main contention of Sri F.V. Patil is that the alleged offences being non cognizable, the procedure adopted by 2nd respondent i.e. submission of requisition to the Magistrate to grant permission for conducting investigation is without authority of law and that the mechanical and unreasoned ‘permission’ granted by the Magistrate being arbitrary and also illegal and being not ‘an order’, the petition is liable to be allowed.

7. The submissions of Sri Praveen K. Uppar and Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned advocates, on the other hand is that in view of the permission granted by the learned Magistrate, investigation made and charge-sheet having been filed, the petitioner should face trial before the criminal court.

8. The offences alleged by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner