Rathnakala, J.

1. Learned Addl. SPP is directed to take notice for R-1.

2. The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No. 16 in the FIR registered by respondent No. 1 on the complaint of respondent No. 2. The allegation of the prosecution is that this petitioner along with co-accused was indulged in gambling. I.O. on credible information went to the spot along with panchas raided the spot, seized the incriminating materials, thereafter, on getting permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, has registered the case in NCR No. 214/15.

3. Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that offence alleged since non-cognizable in nature, the Investigating Officer was required to follow mandatory provisions under Section 155(1) & (2) of Cr.P.C. (for short 'the Code') and he had no jurisdiction to investigate without prior permission of the Court. After the major part of the investigation was carried out, he has registered the case and thereafter obtained permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is not in accordance with the scheme of Section 155(1) & (2) of the Code. This Court has been consistently quashing the criminal proceedings in respect of non-cognizable cases, where investigation is not preceded with the order of the Magistrate.

4. Sn Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional SPP distinguishing the present case from the earlier ones referred to by the petitioner (wherein proceedings were quashed) submits that, the Investigating Officer on credible information obtained search warrant from the Magistrate, raided the spot and seized incriminating material under Mahaazar in the presence of panchas, arrested the accused, returned to the Police Station with seized articles and arrested the person, registered the case in Non-cognizable Case Register, on obtaining necessary permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code, registered the F.I.R. It is not a case where a private party approached the Investigating Officer with the allegation of non-cognizable offence. Hence referring the informant to the Magistrate as at Section 155(1) of the Code, would not arise. It is a case under the Karnataka Police Act, Section 155(2) have to be read independently without reference to Section 155(1) of the Code. The Investigating Officer after compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 155(2) has registered the case. The petitioners have not made out any case to invoke jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code.

5. The informant of the case is Police Inspector/Station House Officer of the respondent/Police. On his own showing, at the direction of his superior Officer and also with the search warrant issued by him, he went to the spot with his staff and panchas and has came out search warrant in respect of search of a place as contemplated by Section 94 of the Code and the authority to issue search warrant is with District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate of first class. It is not clear who was the authority that issued search warrant. However, the things stand cleared that the Investigating Officer had definite information about the place and nature of offence. It is not as if he went to the spot to ascertain the credibility of information. He has gone to the spot well prepared with his staff and panchas. The first and foremost duty of an officer in charge of a Police Station on receiving an information about commission of an offence within his jurisdiction is, to reduce the same into writing. As per the procedure contemplated, if the information is about commission of a cognizable offence, the procedure under Section 154 and in respect of non-cognizable offence incidents of Section 155(1) shall follow which reads as below:

"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 offen