IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

The accused in C.C.No.216/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The prosecution case is that on 20.03.2012 at about 07:30 p.m, the petitioner inflicted voluntary hurt upon the second respondent by hitting upon his face and kicking upon his abdomen. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.

2. Upon getting information from the General Hospital, Ernakulam that the second respondent is undergoing treatment there due to the injuries sustained in a physical assault, the S.I of Police, Central Police Station came to the said hospital and recorded the statement of the second respondent. Finding that the offence alleged is non-cognizable, the S.I of Police, Central Police Station moved application before the learned Magistrate seeking permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C for registering a crime and commencing investigation. As per order dated 24.03.2012, the learned Magistrate accorded permission to the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station to conduct investigation after registering a case in connection with the injury sustained by the second respondent in a physical assault.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the prosecution initiated against him is vitiated due to the non-competence of the S.I of Police, Central Police Station to seek permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C to register the case and proceed with the investigation. For the above reason, the petitioner seeks to quash the case pending against him before the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.216/2019, in connection with the incident said to have happened on 20.03.2012.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proper course which the S.I of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam ought to have adopted upon getting information about the alleged physical assault committed by the petitioner upon the second respondent, was to enter the substance of the information in a book kept in the Police Station and to refer the second respondent to the Magistrate as provided under sub Section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. It is thus argued that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C to register a case and to investigate the matter, is bad in the eyes of law. In support of the above argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Biju V.G. (Dr.) v. State of Kerala and Another [2020 (6) KLT 184]

6. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, Section 155 Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder:

“155. 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 prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant 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 offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.”

7. Sub Section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C requires the Officer-in-charge of a police station getting information ab