IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1757 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

NAGARAJUNA S/O SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O PALAVALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA High Court of Karnataka BY PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 577 202.

(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001) 2. SHRI MANJUNATHA S/O (NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER)

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HC-360, PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 577 202.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 1005/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA (CRIME NO. 198/2022 OF PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF 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 petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1005/2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963..

2. Heard Sri. P.B. Umesh, learned counsel for Sri. Ravindra B. Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner, Sri K. Nageshwarapa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no permission obtained to register the crime as obtaining under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

4. The issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630, wherein, it has 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 pu