IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Prasanth K.S. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1867 OF 2024
Decided On : 05-09-2024
Quash - Criminal Procedure - Section 155(2), 155(4) of Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized that police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, establishing the necessity of judicial oversight in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a case, sought to quash the final report and proceedings initiated by the police for non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, arguing the investigation was defective.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police had no authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, rendering the FIR and subsequent proceedings illegal.
Issues: Whether the police had the authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation of non-cognizable offences by police without a Magistrate's order is illegal, reinforcing the requirement for judicial oversight.
Result: The proceedings were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction in the police investigation.
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure II Final Report and all further proceedings in C.P.No.8/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha, arose out of Crime No.1638/2023 of Alapuzha North Police Station. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records, including the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The prosecution case is that on 04.11.2023, when the defacto complainant appeared in person at the District Court in Alappuzha to give evidence in a case relating to Ambalapuzha police station, the accused, who introduced himself as the clerk of one Ambika Madam, threatened the defacto complainant that he had the video clips and photos of the defacto complainant and he had seen the same. Therefore, she would lose the case and thereby pressurized her to change her statement which she had given against the accused in the said case. In this matter, FIR was registered by the police, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 195A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short). Thereafter, the matter was investigated and filed final report, incorporating offences punishable under Sections 341, 195A and 506 of IPC.
4. The main contention at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation is defective ab initio since police has no right to investigate non-cognizable offence/s without the order of the Magistrate, having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decisions of this Court in Haneefa v. State of Kerala reported in 2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1064, where this Court considered the impact of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. wherein this Court held as under:
9. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C prohibits not only an investigation but even the commencement of an investigation by the police without orders from the Magistrate concerned in cases where only noncognizable offences are alleged. The legislative intent of categorising offences into cognizable and non-cognizable with a fetter placed on the police officer from commencing an investigation into a noncognizable offence without orders from the Magistrate has a purpose. The emphatic negative language employed in the section indicates that the legislative mandate cannot be disobeyed or ignored.
10. The requirement of an order of the Magistrate to commence an investigation into a non- cognizable offence is a fundamental requirement. It goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the investigating officer to commence the investigation. When there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, it is not a mere irregularity but is an illegality. The situation would have been different if, amongst various non- cognizable offences, there was atleast one cognizable offence. If one of the offences for which the FIR is registered is a cognizable offence, then in view of section 154(4) Cr.P.C, the police can investigate without an order from the Magistrate.”
5. Another decision of this Court in Suni @ Sunil v. State of Kerala, reported in 2023 (3) KHC 57 also has been pressed into, wher
Police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, ensuring judicial oversight in such matters.
Police lack authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order, making subsequent FIR registrations invalid and procedural lapses inherently illegal.
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.
Investigation into non-cognizable offences requires a Magistrate's order; if a case involves cognizable offences, it is treated as cognizable under Section 155 of 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.
Permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. can be granted by the Magistrate upon application from the complainant, validating subsequent investigations. Procedural technicalities do not invalidate proce....
The court upheld the validity of police seeking permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for investigating non-cognizable offences, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory interpretation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.