Failure to obtain permission for investigating a non-cognizable offence under Sec. 155 of the Cr.P.C can vitiate the proceedings and lead to the quashing of the FIR and complaint.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, who is accused No.7 before the trial Court, have filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the FIR and complaint and the proceedings pending on the file of Prl. Civil Court (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Sirsi, in Crime No.53/2022 for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ( for short "K.P. Act"), contending that the alleged offence is a non-cognizable and the investigating officer has not obtained the permission of the jurisdictional magistrate as mandated under Sec. 155 of the Cr.P.C and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the records.

3. As evident from the records, Crime No.53/2022 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act, based on the complaint filed by Police Officer, Honnavar Police Station, alleging that on 2/6/2022 at 3.00 p.m., near Subhashchandra Complex's ground floor of Sirsi Town, at a public place, the petitioner was indulged in collecting money from public for "Matka" which is a game of chance.

4. Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.53/2022 and transmitted the FIR to the Court. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that no permission is taken from the learned Magistrate to proceed with the investigation and as such the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Sec. 155 of the Cr.P.C and also the decision of this Court in the matter of Vaggeppa Gurulingappa Jangaligi (Jangalagi) V/s. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630. (Vaggeppa's case) and submits that in the absence of following the mandatory procedure provided under Sec. 155 of the Cr.P.C, the proceedings are liable to the quashed.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader conceded that there is no material to show that the investigation officer has requested the jurisdictional Magistrate to grant permission and that accordingly the Magistrate has given the permission to proceed with the investigation.

7. It is not in dispute that the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of K.P. Act is a non-cognizable offence and therefore, the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Sec. 155 of Cr.P.C and Rule 1 of Chapter 5 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, are required to be followed before the investigation officer could proceed with the investigation. In Vaggeppa's case referred to supra, this Court while referring to the said provisions has given guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by the investigating officer as well as the jurisdictional Magistrate in granting permission to the investigation officer to conduct investigation in a non cognizable offence. Admittedly, this procedure is not followed and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and accordingly the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C, is hereby allowed.

The FIR and complaint and the proceedings pending on the file of Prl. Civil Court (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Sirsi, in Crime No.53/2022 for the offence punishable under Sec. 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed.