ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. On the report of PSI-Kantharaj.K, Pavagada dated 21.08.2017, NCR was registered against the petitioners and a requisition was given by the investigation Officer to the learned Magistrate to permit them to conduct investigation as provided under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C having regard to the fact that the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is non-cognizable offence. The learned Magistrate has made an endorsement to the effect “permitted” on the very same requisition submitted by the investigating officer and thereafter FIR, has been lodged in Cr.No.197/2017 of Pavagada Police Station of Tumkur District and police after investigation have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 which is now pending in C.C.No.579/2017 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Pavagada. The petitioners have questioned the validity of said proceedings on the ground that that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences having regard to the fact that no valid permission as required under law was granted to the investigating officer by the learned Magistrate.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the endorsement made on the requisition submitted by the investigating officer to the effect “permitted” is not in compliance of the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. He also submitted that there is no application of mind by the learned Magistrate at the time of granting such a permission and therefore, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per Contra, learned HCGP opposes the petition and contends that charge sheet has been already filed and therefore, the petitioners are required to stand trial for the said offences. Validity of the proceedings could be considered even at the time of trial and therefore, there is no requirement to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioners have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 which is a non-cognizable offence. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that prior to registration of the case and proceeding for investigation in respect of a non-cognizable offence a permission is required to be obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate. Failure to obtain such a permission would vitiate the proceedings. In this case learned Magistrate has granted permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C by making an endorsement to the said effect in the requisition submitted by police. This Court in Crl.P.No.101997/2019 disposed on 10.12.2019 under similar circumstances while quashing the Criminal proceedings has laid down certain guidelines for the benefit of the judicial officers working in the state which reads as follows:

“20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V 24 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

(i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted’ on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

(ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to pl