Magistrates must apply judicial reasoning when granting permission for police investigations in non-cognizable offenses, failing which proceedings can be quashed.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.2034/2023 on the file of the JMFC, III Court, Mangaluru, arising out of Crime No.77/2023 registered by the respondent – Police for offence punishable under Section 78(1)(a)(iii) of Karnataka Police Act .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.77/2023 registered by the respondent – Police, pursuant to the complaint dated 18.08.2023 filed by the complainant for the aforesaid offence. In the complaint and FIR, one Gokul Das Shenoy having been arraigned as accused No.1, approached this Court in Crl.P.No.2555/2024, which was allowed vide order dated 21.07.2025 and proceedings against accused No.1 were quashed by this Court as hereunder:-

“In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“Quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.77/2023 registered by Urva Police station in CC No.2034/2023 pending on the file of JMFC III Court, Mangaluru, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(iii) Karnataka Police Act and grant such other & further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to Complaint dated 18.08.2023 filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(iii) of Karnataka Police Act , 1963 the respondents proceeded to investigate the alleged offence without seeking prior approval from the Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the cases ofVageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024.

4. In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi’s case supra, this Court held as under:

“16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155 (1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155 (2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non- cognizable offence.

17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non- cognizable offence.

18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non-cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155 (1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non- cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be enter