Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Asif S/o Abdul Raheman - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 201594 of 2024
Decided On : 01-07-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a challenge to the legality of police investigation and proceedings initiated against the petitioners for alleged non-cognizable offences under the Karnataka Police Act, related to organizing gambling (!) (!) (!) .
The core legal issue pertains to whether the police adhered to the procedural requirements mandated by the applicable law, specifically Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023), before investigating the non-cognizable offence (!) (!) .
Section 174 of BNSS, 2023, stipulates that police must record information about non-cognizable offences, refer the informant to a Magistrate, and obtain a Magistrate's order before commencing investigation. Investigation without such an order is unlawful (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation and subsequent proceedings in this case were initiated without following the prescribed procedure, specifically without obtaining a Magistrate's permission, rendering the police action unlawful (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that when an offence is non-cognizable, police cannot investigate without prior Magistrate's approval, and any investigation conducted otherwise is invalid (!) (!) .
The court found that the police registered the case, investigated, and filed a final report against the petitioners without adhering to the procedural mandates of Section 174, leading to the proceedings being unlawful (!) .
Consequently, the court quashed the order of cognizance and the criminal proceedings, declaring them invalid due to procedural lapses (!) .
The court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Law Department for appropriate action (!) .
In summary, the court held that in cases of non-cognizable offences, police must strictly follow the procedural safeguards, including obtaining a Magistrate's order prior to investigation. Failure to do so invalidates the proceedings, leading to their quashing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under bnss, 2023 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. description of police investigation details (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding procedural irregularities (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. reference to section 174 of bnss, 2023 (Para 6) |
| 5. court's interpretation of section 174 (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. expectation of rules following bnss enforcement (Para 13) |
| 7. invalid prosecution due to procedural lapses (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. order to quash criminal proceedings (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS , 2023), with the following prayer:
“Criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 praying to quash the order of taking cognizance and issue of process dated 27-08-2024 passed in C.C.No.1017/2024 (Hutti PS Crime No.147/2024 District Raichur) for the offences punishable u/Sec. 78(III) of Karnataka Police Act, pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, district Raichur.”
3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
3.1 Sri Hosakerappa K. Police Inspector of Hutti Police Station, Raichur lodged a report with the Station House Officer (for short ‘SHO’) of Hutti police station, which was registered in Crime No.147/2024 on 16.07.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 78(III) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short ‘K.P.Act’).
3.2 Gist of the report filed by the Police Inspector of Hutti police station would reveal that when he was in police station 16.07.2024 at about 12.30 p.m., he received a credible information that near the new bus-stand of Hutti Town, some people are playing ‘Matka’ by announcing that for a rupee invested reward will be Rs.80/- and were noting down the numbers.
3.3 Based on the said information, he formed a raid team comprising of himself, sub staff and panchas. They raided the said place and noticed that present petitioners and others were found in the said place indulging in ‘Matka’. From the custody of petitioners, sum of Rs.17,870/-, matka list, Redmi telephone, Vivo telephone and matka chits were sized.
3.4 Later on, the police registered a case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet on 19.07.2024.
3.5 Very registration of the case and filing of the charge sheet is called in question in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition wound contend that respondent – police did not follow the procedure as is contemplated under Section 174 of BNSS , 2023 and sought for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports registration of the case and filing of the charge sheet.
6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 174 of BNSS , 2023, which reads as under:
“174. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may by rules prescribe in this behalf:
(i) refer the informant to the Magistrate;
(ii) forward the daily diary report of all such cases fortnightly to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more of
In non-cognizable offence cases, police must obtain a Magistrate's order before investigating; failure to do so renders proceedings unlawful.
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.
Police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without a prior order from the Magistrate, as per Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Police lack authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, making subsequent FIR registrations invalid and procedural lapses inherently illegal.
Police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, ensuring judicial oversight in such matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
