Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of FIR as well as further proceedings in FIR No.277/2015 dated 05.07.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sriganganagar for offence under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance 1949.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Schedule 2 of Cr.P.C. which is classification of offences against other laws in the Cr.P.C., reads as follows :-

"II Classification Of Offences Against Other Laws

    

Offence	Cognizable or non-cognizable"	Bailable or Non-bailable	by what Court triable
If punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or Imprisonment for more than 7 years	cognizable	Non-bailable	Court of session
If punishable with imprisonment for 3 years and upwards but not more than 7 years.	Ditto	Ditto	Magistrate of first class
if punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only.	Non-cognizable	Bailable	Any Magistrate

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter has drawn attention of the Court to the definition in 2C and 2L, the definition given in 2L and 2C of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows :-

"2C- "cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;

2L- "non-cognizable offence'' means an offence for which, and "non-cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant;"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter drawn attention of the Court to Section 155 of Sub-section 2 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which reads as follows :-

"155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1). ----------------------

(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."

Thus, it is apparent that offence under Section 41/42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 is non-cognizable offence and petitioner can only be prosecuted by filing a complaint by the authorised/competent Officer. No FIR in the present case, could have been registered. Further, Police Officer concerned has not obtained permission from the Magistrate concerned for investigation of the offence.

In view of the above, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the present petition is accepted and the impugned FIR is quashed along with all subsequent proceedings. However, liberty is granted to the competent authorised Officer to file a complaint in accordance with the provisions of law, if it is not barred by limitation."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus, impressed upon the Court that going by the Cr.P.C. as well as other judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Forest Act etc., the offences which are non-cognizable were not permitted to be investigated without the order of the Magistrate who was having the power to try such cases or committed the case for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further shown the provision charged against the present petitioner which is Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance 1949, which is reads as follows :-

"13. Gaming and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets ; Destruction of instrument of gaming found in public streets. A police officer may apprehend without warrant any person found gaming in any public street, place, or thoroughfare; or

Any person setting any birds or animals to fight in any public street, place or thoroughfare; or

Any Person there present aiding and abetting such public fighting of birds a