Mandatory compliance with Section 155 of Cr.P.C. is crucial for police investigations of non-cognizable offences.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1581/2020, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Udupi, registered for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act , 1963 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The petitioners get involved in a crime in Crime No.157/2019 for the afore-quoted offences. Prior to registration of the crime, as obtaining under Sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has granted permission by a word ‘permitted’. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, the alleged offences are the ones punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, which are non-cognizable offences and for non-cognizable offences, a nod of the learned Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory. In the case at hand, the learned Magistrate has accorded permission by the word ‘permitted’ and such permissions being granted by the learned Magistrate are held to be illegal and the crimes have been quashed by the co-ordinate benches and this Court as well, by following the judgment rendered in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported inILR 2020 KAR 630, wherein, the learned single Judge was considering the issue whether the endorsement ‘permitted’ would be in compliance of Section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C., wherein, it is held as follows:

“3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973. Therefore, the Police have no authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the Police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the Police to take up investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non-cognizable one and therefore, as per Section 155 (1) of Cr. P.C., the informant PSI ought to have been referred to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have passed the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up investigation of the case and these are the mandatory requirements of the provisions under Section 155 (1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. which are not followed in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.

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.