1. The petitioner has filed the present criminal petition to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 28/2015 arising out of Crime No. 76/2013 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFCI, Raichur.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Sikandar Basha, an Government Officer Gazetted, Flying Squad Chief lodged a written complaint before the Netaji Nagar Police Station alleging that he has received information on 16.04.2013 at 11.00 a.m. at the time of submission of nomination of assembly election in Raichur Rural Constituency 53, one Tipparaju Hawaldar, a BJP candidate engaged unauthorized private vehicles by giving money to the said vehicle owners for the purpose of bringing the voters and campaign at the time of submitting his nomination by violating the code of conduct of election and without obtaining the permission from the authorized election officer. It was further alleged that the Gazetted Officer along with his staff and panchas seized 11 vehicles and filed the complaint before Netaji Nagar police station for the offences punishable under Sections 171-H and 188 of IPC. The respondent-police have registered a case in Crime No. 76/2013 against the accused/petitioner and submitted the charge sheet against him. Hence, the present is filed petition to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No. 76/2013.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

4. Sri Mahadev S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the very initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Section 171-H of IPC without prior permission from the learned Magistrate to investigate is not maintainable. He further contended that to initiate any criminal proceeding against the accused under Section 188 of IPC, the complainant has to file a private complaint as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any crime much-less as alleged in the complaint and has been falsely implicated in the crime by the police. He further contended that the Court cannot take cognizance unless a public servant files a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that Section 171-H is non-cognizable offence and the police cannot investigate the matter without prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. He further contended that though the petitioner has filed discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate has held that this Court has power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Trial Court already took cognizance and cannot go behind the stage of taking cognizance. Therefore, sought to quash the proceedings by allowing the present petition.

5. Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and has not disputed the fact that before initiation of proceedings under Section 171-H of IPC, the police have to take prior permission of the Magistrate. He also submits that the Court cannot take cognizance unless a public servant files a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the material on record clearly depicts that there was no complaint in writing by the complainant, who was an official of Gazeetted Flying Squad Chief against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the offence under Section 188 of IPC. On the other hand, he has filed a complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation. The registration of a case by the police under Section 188 of IPC itself is illegal. On the date of registration of case itself, the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. was operating and the police gets no jurisdiction even to register a case under Section 188 of IPC. Once an illegality perpetrates into the investigation, such investigation is hit by the statutory principles, then it cannot be construed