An endorsement such as 'permitted' by a Magistrate does not constitute a valid order under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. without reasoned consideration, necessitating compliance with established procedural guidelines.

ORDER :

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

a) Call for the relevant records;

b) Quash the FIR in Crime No.94/2024, pending on the file of Respondent No.1 Koramangala PS, Bengaluru for the offences punishable u/s 171F of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (also pending on the file of the 39^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru).

c) Grant any such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to complaint dated 28.03.2024 filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 171F of IPC , a requisition was made by respondent No.1 – Police to learned Magistrate to permit for investigation under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C, which was granted by passing a cryptic, laconic, non speaking and unreasoned order without assigning valid reasons, which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the cases of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024.

4. In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 , this Court held as under:

“ 16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155 (1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155 (2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable offence.

18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non- cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155 (1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155 (1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155 (2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the