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. 6768 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SUDHAKARA.K.S S/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, VOKKALIGA, D KODIHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TQ.

MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 802.

2. THIMMAIAH, S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOVIHATTI VILLAGE, MUDALAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TQ. CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA - 577 527.

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J 3. SATHISHA C.M KARISHETTY S/O MARILINGEGOWDA, Location: High Court of AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Karnataka CHAMALAPURA VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TQ, MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 418.

4. MANJUNATHA.U.P S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, UPPARAHALLI, VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TQ. MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 432.

5. RAJU C, S/O CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGACHAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TQ. MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 418.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BELLUR POLICE STATION, BELLUR, KARNATAKA - 571 418 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. HARISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THEN POLICE INSPECTOR, DCIB DPO, MANDYA, MANDYA CITY, KARNATAKA - 571 401.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SSP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.491/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, NELAMANGALA FOR THE OFFCNE P/U/S 79, 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS (AS PER ANNEXURE-A).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Bhargava D. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5, is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.491/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the offences under Sections 79 and 80 are non-cognizable and for a non-cognizable offence, prior to the registration of a crime, nod of the Magistrate was imperative.

4. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor on verification of the records would admit that no permission was even sought at the hands of the learned Magistrate, prior to registration of a crime.

5. The issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi. (Jangaligi) vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630

6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, 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 f