The central legal point established is that the investigating officer must strictly adhere to the procedure outlined in Section 155 Cr.P.C. for investigating non-cognizable offences.

ORDER :

[PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in S.T.C.No.844 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry District and quash the same.]

The petition is to quash the proceedings in STC.No.811 of 2010 initiated for the alleged offence under Section 320 IPC.

2. Mr. Swami Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate and file a final report in respect of the offence alleged in the final report as it is a non-cognizable offence; that the procedure prescribed for investigating non-cognizable offences has not been followed in the instant case; that the first respondent ought to have referred the informant to the learned Magistrate and thereafter, can investigate the said offence on the orders of the learned Magistrate; that however, in the instant case, the first respondent, on receipt of the complaint, sought permission from the learned Magistrate to investigate this offence and such a procedure is not contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. He relied upon the Judgements of this Court in A. Balakrishna vs. The Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P.No.8662 of 2020 dated 28.09.2020 and Karnataka High Court in (i) Sri Lokesh T R @ Loki vs. State of Karnataka and (ii) Charan Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka in support of his submission that Section 155 (1) (2) Cr.P.C., mandates that the officer-in-charge of the Police Station has to refer the informant and not the information alone to the learned Magistrate, and hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.

3. Mr. K.S. Mohan Das, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) for the first respondent and Mr. S. Xavier Felix, the learned counsel for defacto complainant/second respondent, submitted that since the first respondent has obtained permission from the learned Magistrate, there is no illegality in the first respondent filing the final report for the non-cognizable offence. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.

4. This Court finds that the impugned final report has been filed for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The said offence is a non-cognizable offence. In the instant case, on receipt of the complaint, it appears that the first respondent had sought permission from the learned Magistrate to register an FIR and investigate. However, this Court finds that Section 155 Cr.P.C provides for a different procedure which has not been followed. Section 155 Cr.P.C., reads as follows :

''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.''

5. Section 155 (1) of Cr.P.C makes it very clear that where information is received by an officer-in-charge of a Police station regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he/she shall refer the informant to the learned Magistrate. There is a difference between referring the informant to the learned Magistrate and seeking permission from the lear