Dheeraj Muniraj Bjp vs State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2025

Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                              -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:54363
                                                        CRL.P No. 17119 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17119 OF 2025
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    DHEERAJ MUNIRAJ BJP
                         S/O MUNIRAJ P,
                         AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
                         NO. 167, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
                         VADDARAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL,
                         KARNATAKA-561 205
                                                                  ... PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. ARNAV A BAGALWADI., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         BY HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION.
Digitally signed
by VIDYA G R             REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE
Location:                HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT
OF                       BANGALORE - 560 001
KARNATAKA

                   2.    SRI. MURALIDHAR S
                         S/O LATE SAMPAGAMPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                         OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER
                         AT: PWD DEPARTMENT
                         DODDABALLAPURA,
                         BANGALORE - 561 203
                                                               ... RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADISH, ADDL. SPP)
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:54363
                                   CRL.P No. 17119 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC., 1973, (FILED
U/S 528 BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.5664/2023 ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.0014/2023 REGISTERED BY THE HOSAHALLI P.S. FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 171(E) THE IPC 1860,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV


                      ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional SPP appears on behalf of the

State.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to set

aside the proceedings in C.C.No.5664/2023 arising out of

Crime No.14/2023 registered by Hosahalli P.S. for the

offence punishable under Section 171 (E) of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri.Arnav Bagalwadi

submits that apart from merits, there is a serious

procedural lapse insofar as the Magistrate who acts upon

the requisition for permission to investigate under Section

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

155 (2) Cr.P.C., has to pass an order with due application

of mind.

4. It is submitted that this court on several occasions

has frowned upon practice of granting permission for

investigation in terms of Section 155 Cr.P.C., by mere

endorsement on the requisition by the police authorities.

5. It is settled position of law that has been

reiterated in number of judgments that requisition of

police authorities under Section 155 (2) seeking

permission must be considered and permission granted by

application of mind.

6. This court in the case of Vitesh Pillai v. State of

Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC Online KAR 32 has

observed that mere words 'Perused, Heard

Sri.Muralidhar.S, Satisfied, Permitted' as made in the

present case would not be sufficient application of mind.

The observation at para 11 reads as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

11. Therefore, the order is perused and permitted.

Except saying perused, the requisition and permitted investigation or registration of FIR, there is no indication of any application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate. This Court in plethora of cases has been emphasizing the fact that Magistrates should not permit registration of FIR by usage of words "permitted", "perused permitted" or even "permitted registration of FIR". All these illustrations of granting permission on the face of it suffers from want of application of mind. Permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a frolicsome act on the part of the Magistrate, The Magistrate exercises power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr. P.C., In doing so, it cannot be that he could pass orders which do not bear a semblance of application of mind. This Court in VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 following all the earlier judgments rendered on the issue has held as follows:

"3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable as per the Criminal Procedure Code, 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

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

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 27 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

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

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 non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable."

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

9. Therefore, when the SHO of the Police Station receives a report regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., stated supra. Unless, the Police Officer is permitted by an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet.

11. This Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka in Crl.P. 5934/2009 decided on 20/8/2013 considered the scope of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., has observed in para 5 as follows:--

"5. Section 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of an information received by the officer in charge of a police station relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence. According to sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., when an officer in charge of the Police Station receives an information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. According to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., no police officer shall investigate

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

a non-cognizable case without a order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading of sub-section (1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO, who receives information as to the commission of a non- cognizable offence is only to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is for the informant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek a direction to the police for investigation. If the Magistrate on being approached by the informant, directs investigation, the Police Officer concerned would get jurisdiction to investigate the matter."

12. This Court in paragraph 6 has further has observed as follows:--

"In the case on hand, as noticed supra, upon receipt of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the SHO of Virajpet Police Station registered the same as NCR and submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter, based on which, the Magistrate granted permission. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SHO is without the authority of law and the same is not contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. Therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on such requisition is also without any basis, as such, the investigation carried on by the police and the charge sheet filed thereon are without the authority of law. Therefore, the prosecution launched

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, it is open to Respondent No. 2, who is the informant before the police to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek necessary orders as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C."

7. In light of the above legal position, the order of

the Magistrate dated 04.04.2023 is set aside. The matter

is restored to the stage where the police authorities

require to obtain orders from the requisite Magistrate for

the purpose of proceeding further with investigation.

8. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.5664/2023

pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC.,

Doddaballapura are set aside. The matter is remitted back

in terms of the above.

9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. All

contentions are kept open.

10. A copy of this order shall be placed before the

President, Karnataka Judicial Academy for perusal taking

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54363

HC-KAR

note of the repeated errors being made on the judicial

side.

Sd/-

(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

NP