ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.3397/2019 pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge, Athani for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “K.P. Act” for short).

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

One Mr. H.N. Shirahatti, PSI Kagwad police station filed a complaint before the SHO of Kagwad Police station stating that on 23.09.2019 at about 18.15 hours, when he was in the police station he received credible information, that within the limits of Mole Village near Laxmi Temple, some persons are playing gambling called “Andar Baahar” for their personal benefit, contrary to law and illegally. Thereafter, he informed the same to Dy. S.P. Athani and CPI Athani, telephonically and as per their instructions and direction, himself along with staff proceeded to the said spot. They reached the spot at 19.30 hours and they stood little away and watched and found that certain persons were saying Yakka means Rs.100/- etc. and they conducted raid and caught hold 13 persons and recovered cash of Rs.10,250/-. On the basis of the complaint, the SHO registered Crime No 123/2019 for offence under Section 87 of K.P. Act. Subsequently, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act.

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 the Magistrate. Further, Subsection (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.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non6 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the orders of this Court passed in several cases in support of his submission.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the jurisdictional Magistrate has permitted the concerned police to take up investigation and therefore, there is compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

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. There