Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9952
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VENKATESH NAIK T, J
PRASANNA S/O SHRIRANGASA KABADI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Criminal Petition | C.C.No.459/2024
For the Appellant:Learned counsel for the petitioner
For the Respondents: Learned High Court Government Pleader
Police lack authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a judicious order from the Magistrate, invalidating subsequent proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Section 78(3) - Quashing of cognizance and proceedings initiated against accused for cricket betting - Mandatory requirements under Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. not complied with, leading to lack of jurisdiction for police investigation - Proceedings quashed due to absence of a judicious order from the Magistrate allowing investigation. (Paras 5, 7, 11, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 155(1) and (2) - Non-cognizable offences - Police cannot investigate without Magistrate's permission - Jurisdictional Magistrate must apply mind before permitting investigation. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused No.3, challenged the cognizance and proceedings initiated for alleged cricket betting, asserting that the police acted without jurisdiction as the offence was non-cognizable and required prior Magistrate approval.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the police had no authority to investigate the matter due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law.
Issues: Whether the jurisdictional Magistrate's endorsement constituted a valid order allowing police investigation into a non-cognizable offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a judicious order from the Magistrate rendered the police's investigation unlawful, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural mandates for non-cognizable offences.
Result: The criminal petition was allowed, quashing the cognizance and proceedings against the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused challenges the cognizance for alleged cricket betting. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the non-cognizable nature of the offence and police authority. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on mandatory compliance for investigating non-cognizable offences. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling quashing the proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction. (Para 13) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. This petition filed by accused No.3 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNSS ” for short) to quash the cognizance dated 24.07.2024 and entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner – accused No.3 in C.C.No.459/2024 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II Court at Gadag arising out of Crime No.33/2024 of Betageri Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (“KP Act” for short).
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:
On 08.04.2024 at about 7:30 p.m. the Police Inspector, Betageri Police Station received a credible information, wherein it was alleged that some unknown persons near Rangappajjanamath, Betageri were involved in Cricket betting and betting on the score and result of the IPL 20-20 match held between Chennai Super Kings Vs. Kolkata Knight Riders at M.A.Chidambaram Cricket Stadium in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. This information was received at about 7.15 p.m. Hence, the Police Inspector and his staff conducted the raid at the alleged spot and had drawn the recovery panchanama in between 7:20 p.m. and 8.20 p.m. on the same day.
4. Under seizure panchanama, the Police Officer seized betting note book, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.900/- from the accused persons. Hence, the Station House Officer Betageri Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.33/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 78 (3) of KP Act. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner – accused No.3 filed this criminal petition.
5. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived and the alleged offence is a non-cognizable one under the provisions of BNSS ( Cr.P.C .). The police have no authority to investigate the crime and they have not complied the mandatory requirements of Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C . It is contended that when the Officer In-charge of the Police Station received an information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in the Register maintained in the said police station and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further as per Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C , no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate, having power to try such case or to commit such case for trial. But there is no iota of evidence to show that the above requirements are complied with in the present case. Though there is an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate for permitting the police to take up the investigation, but there is no speaking order to that effect. The alleged raid was conducted in between 7:20 p.m. to 8:20 p.m, however, the information was received in the Police Station at 9:55 p.m. on the said date. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners liable to be quashed.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that, the jurisdictional Magistrate has permitted to the concerned Police Officer to take up the investigation and therefore there is substantial compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C .
7. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the KP Act is non cognizable one and when the report is received by the SHO of the police station in respect of commission of non cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory requirements under Sections 155 (1) and 155 (2) of Cr.P.C . Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of
