Prosecutorial proceedings for non-cognizable offences are invalid if the mandatory permission from a Magistrate is not obtained as stipulated in Sections 155(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner is accused No.7 qua accused Nos.1 to 6. This court has quashed the proceedings in Crl.P.No.9904/2024.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the reason so rendered while quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 6 would squarely become applicable to the facts of the case at hand qua accused No.7, as well.

3. This court has held as follows:

"The petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 03.08.2022, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – I, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.27412/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Adarsha R., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. It is an admitted fact that though the offences are punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, which are non-cognizable offences and for a non-cognizable offence, prior permission of the learned Magistrate is imperative under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. In the case at hand, no permission is sought prior to registration of the crime.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader on verification of the records submits that no permission is sought before the learned Magistrate before registration of a crime.

5. In the light of the aforesaid submission, the entire investigation conducted without following the mandatory procedure by the respondents, would tumble down. The view of mine is fortified by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA , ILR 2020 KAR 630 wherein it is held as follows:

“3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the Police have no authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the Police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the Police to take up investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non-cognizable one and therefore, as per Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., the informant PSI ought to have been referred to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have passed the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up investigation of the case and these are the mandatory requirements of the provisions under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. which are not followed in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.

8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non-cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO of Police Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(