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. 1796 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

1. NAGESHA, S/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S.L.J. TEMPLE ROAD, OLD TOWN, MANDYA CITY-571401

2. NAGESHA, Digitally signed by S/O LATE MADAIAH, SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Location:

High Court of Karnataka R/AT NO.877, 6TH CROSS, LABOUR COLONY, MANDYA CITY-571401 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA CITY-571401.

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

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

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC.NO.589/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF K.P ACT.

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.589/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

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

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would project that there is no permission obtained or permission granted is only by word 'seen'.

4. The issue in the lis need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi. (Jangaligi) vs. The State of Karnataka

1 has held as follows:

1 ILR 2020 KAR 630

“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- cognizabl