An investigation into a non-cognizable offence is invalid if the police officer fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of entering the information in the prescribed book and obtaining a reasoned order from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 12, are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2256/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 80 , 79(A) and 79(C) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 .

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 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-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155 (1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with the procedure for investigation and for taking cognizance of non-cognizable offence reads as follows:—

“155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.

(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a