ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused to quash Crime No.1703 of 2022 dated 27.10.2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, LB Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda District including the endorsement “permitted” dated 21.10.2022 ordered by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B. Nagar, Cyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the police, L.B.Nagar against the petitioner/accused. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the respondent No.2 was working from Hyderabad and Vijayawada. He developed a website http://drmaurthiprasad.com for the petitioner but payment was not made by the petitioner herein towards the agreed development costs. It is further alleged that petitioner was harassing by making phone calls to the CEO and MD Priyanka, who is the citizen of Singapore.

4. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are non-cognizable, the police made a requisition to the concerned Magistrate for grant of permission to investigate into the crime. The learned Magistrate having received the requisition of the police dated 17.10.2022 passed order as “permitted” on 21.10.2022. Having received the said permission from the learned Magistrate, the FIR was registered on 27.10.2022 for the said offences.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the FIR has to be quashed on two grounds :

(a) It is for the informant to approach the learned Magistrate to seek permission.

(b) The learned Magistrate has to give reasons for according such sanction.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2019 SCC Online Kar 2708 in Veggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of Karnataka and also judgment by this Court reported in 2019 SCC Online TS 288 in Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Telangana. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the judgment in Veggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi’s case, the police cannot seek permission but the informant can seek permission from the concerned Magistrate. Further Section 155(1) and 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be read as one and the correct interpretation is that the police cannot make any requisition for permission to investigate the case and the informant has to be sent to the learned Magistrate to get permission.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is clearly mentioned in the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Veggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of Karnataka that it is for the informant / complainant to get permission from Magistrate. However, learned counsel submits that there is no such specific interpretation of the Court in Rajesh Kumar’s case.

8. According to Section 155(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any information received regarding non-cognizable offence, has to be entered into a book as prescribed by the State Government and also refer the informant to the Magistrate. Under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police officer is prohibited from investigating into the non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

9. The wording in Section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C. that the informant can be referred to the Magistrate by the concerned police does not mean that the informant has to seek permission from the concerned Magistrate to enable the police to investigate the case. Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. enabling the police officer to investigate with the permission of a Magistrate does not mean that the informant should be sent to the Magistrate and permission has to be sought by the said informant. If such was the intent of the