The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

the registration of a crime in Crime No.39 of 2023 registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 171E & 171B of the IPC,

1860.

Heard the learned counsel Shri Bhargava D.Bhat

appearing

for

the

petitioner

and

the

learned

HCGP

Smt. Yashodha K.P. appearing for respondents.

3.

The facts that led to registration of the said crime at

this juncture is not required. What is alleged against the

petitioner is the offences punishable under Sections 171E &

171B of the IPC, 1860. Admittedly both these provisions are

non-cognizance. For the non-cognizable offence, permission of

the learned Magistrate is imperative under Section 155(2) of the

Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate has, though, granted permission in

the case at hand it is by the word “PERMITTED”. Such

permission being granted by the learned Magistrate for

registration of crime have all been found fault with in plethora

of judgments rendered by this Court, one of which, I deem it

appropriate to quote the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

- 3 -

case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The

State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 Kar 630 has held as

follows:

“8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence

punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non-

cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO

of Police station in respect of commission of non-cognizable

offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure

prescribed

under Section

155(1) and 155(2) of

Cr.P.C.

Therefore,

it

is

necessary

to

refer

the

said

provision. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. which deal with the

procedure for investigation and for taking cognizance of

non-cognizable offence 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 of icer

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 f or 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

- 4 -

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."

9. Therefore, when the SHO of the

police station receives a report regarding

commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty

to enter the substance of the information in the

prescribed book and refer the informant to the

Magistrate

as

required

under Section

155(1) of

Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is

required to pass an order permitting the police

officer to investigate the case as mandated by the

provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. stated supra.

Unless, the police officer is permitted by an order of

the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the non-

cognizable offence, the police officer does not get

jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final

report or the charge sheet.

10.

This

Court

in

the

case

of

Praven

Basavanneppa Shivalli Vs. State of Karnataka and

Others (2017) 1 Air Kant R 461 considered the

requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C.

where case relates to a non-cognizable offence, in

para 10 of the judgment this Court has observes as

follows:

"10. S. 155 of Cr.P.C. deals with the

procedure to be adopted in respect of the

- 5 -

information received by the Officer in charge of

a Police Station relat