Failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Sec. 155 of Cr.P.C for non-cognizable offences vitiates the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, who is accused No.2 before the trial Court, have filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 11/2/2022 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa in C.C No.759/2022, taking cognizance 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.14/2022 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 PSI Sirigeri Police Station alleging that on 19/1/2022 at 4.00 p.m., near Anjaneya Temple of Dasapur village, at a public place, petitioner-accused No.2 was indulged in collecting money from public through accused No.1 for "Matka" which is a game of chance.

4. Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered case in Crime No.14/2022, 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 proceedings in C.C.No.759/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, Ballari, (arising out of Crime No.14/2022 registered by Sirigeri P.S.) for an offence punishable u/s 78(3) of the of Karnataka Police Act 1963, as against petitioneraccused No.2 is hereby quashed.