IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2026 (482 (Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. RAHUL @ RAHUL V., S/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.273, 8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NAGENDRA BLOCK, BANK COLONY, BANGALORE SOUTH, BHANASHANKARI, BANGALORE - 560 050

2. GURUPRASAD @ GURUPRSAD. T S/O THIBBEGOWDA, Digitally AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, signed by R/AT NEW NO.6, OLD NO.84/A, SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY 10^TH CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, Location:

High Court of KATHRIGUPPE, Karnataka BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

3. BELLIYAPPA @ BELLIYAPPA. R S/O RAMESH B.V., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 124, 9TH MAIN, 2^ND 'A' CROSS, NEAR PES COLLEGE, NAGENDRA BLOCK, SBM COLONY, BANGALORE - 560 050.

(AS PER AADHAR CARD) … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHU N.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

2. DR. B.S. SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PSI, CCB SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING, N.T PET, BANGALORE CITY, PIN-560 053.

.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.5490/2024 (CR.NO.229/2023) OF RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC (TRAFIC COURT IV) BANGALORE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79, 80 KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.5490/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

2. Heard Sri. Raghu N.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners get involved in a crime in Crime No.229/2023 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 in ILR 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 speakin