IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5238 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

1. P.N. ASHWATHANARAYANA S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O OLD KUMBAR BEEDI, PAVAGADA (RURAL)

TUMKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.

(IN FIR NAME IS MENTIONED AS ASHWATHAPPA)

2. SMT. SHILPA B.E.

W/O KIRAN A. Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, by PADMAVATHI B K OCC: LABOURER, Location: High Court of R/O OLD KUMBAR BEEDI, Karnataka PAVAGADA, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.

(IN FIR NAME IS MENTIONED AS SHILPA)

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE 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. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O (NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PC-100, PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 577 202.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR/COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.57/2026 OF PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT (REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PAVAGADA.

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 registration of a crime in crime No.57/2026 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada, registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

2. Heard Sri. Ravindra B. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 i