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 proceedings without demonstrating jurisdictional illegality.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri S.K. Pandey, learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar granting permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., charge sheet dated 10.06.2015 and summoning order dated 21.11.2015, arising out of N.C.R. No.30 of 2014, under Sections 352, 504 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Sammanpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

Factual Matrix of the case

3. An N.C.R. was lodged on 26.03.2014, thereafter the complainant moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to investigate the matter. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application on 28.03.2014 pursuant thereto, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted on which cognizance was taken and the applicant was summoned.

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant

4. Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., the permission for investigation could have been sought only by the police officer. Since the application was moved by the complainant, the permission granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is illegal. Consequently, the entire investigation and subsequent proceedings are vitiated.

5. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Navin Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. /b>. 1995 All LJ 1688 wherein this Court has held as under.

"3. The material difference in between the cognizable and non-cognizable offence is that in the former case the police starts investigation without any order of a magistrate but in non-cognizable case the police can start investigation only after an order of the Magistrate is passed allowing him to do the investigation. So the responsibility lies with the police to obtain the order and not on the complainant."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Vijesh Pillai Vs. State of Karnataka , 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229 especially para nos. 19 and 20 which read as under:

"19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non-cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:—

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

1. Report under Section 154.—

(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.

2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid dow