Karnataka High Court
Ballaranda Kanti Karyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
WP No. 3965 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3965 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
BALLARANDA KANTI KARYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O BALLARANDA MANI UTTAPPA,
ERALA VALAMUDI VILLAGE CHETTALLI
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571 236.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. DIVYA.R.B, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UMASHANKAR MEGUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, KODAGU
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MUSTHAFA A.S,
Digitally signed by S/O SULEMAN,
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: High
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka MYSORE ROAD, SIDDAPURA
TQ. VIRAJPET
KODAGU - 571 218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CPC
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/09/2017 IN CC NO. 614/2018
PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC COURT,
VIRAJPET, KODAGU. PRODUCED AS ANNX-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
WP No. 3965 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other Writ to quash the Order dated 04.09.2017
in C.C.No.614/2018, passed by the Hon'ble
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court,
Virajpet, Kodagu (produced as Annexure-D).
ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other Writ to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.614/2018 pending before Hon'ble
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court
Virajpet, Kodagu (produced as Annexure-E).
iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction and grant
such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of Justice and Equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
Though respondent No.2 is served with notice, he has remained
absent and has not chosen to contest the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
pursuant to complaint dated 03.09.2017 filed by respondent No.2
against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
153A,143, 506 and 149 of IPC, a requisition was made by
respondent No.1 - Police to learned Magistrate to permit the
investigation under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, which was granted by
passing a cryptic, laconic, non speaking and unreasoned order
without assigning valid reasons, which is contrary to the principles
laid down by this Court in the cases of Vageppa Gurulingo
Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2020 KAR 630 and
Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and
another - Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024.
4. In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs.
State of Karnataka - ILR 2020 KAR 630, this Court held as under:
" 16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed
the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in
respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the
mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C.,
are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down
any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in
what manner they have to pass the Order under Section
155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the
non-cognizable offence.
17. In the cases referred above, invariably the
Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the
requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by
writing a word "permitted" or "permitted to investigate". This
Court has held that making such an endorsement on the
requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and
there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the
Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable
offence.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it
necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our
Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and
pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of
Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non-
cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2)
of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the
SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information
regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first
duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such
commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then
refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement
of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is
submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional
Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO
of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting
the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides
that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable
case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try
such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing
an "order" by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to
investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor.
The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in
sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear
that the Magistrate has to pass an 'order' which means
supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of
cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word
'permitted' on the requisition submitted by the Police itself
which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of
Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the
word 'Order'.
19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of
Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non-
cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:--
"INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
*1. Report under Section 154.--(1) On receipt of
the report of the Police Officer under Section 154
of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on
the report of the date and time of the receipt
thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the
Magistrate shall also endorse on the report
whether the same has been received by the post
or muddam.
2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation
of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of
the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank
and designation of the Police Officer or the Police
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
Officers by whom the investigation shall be
conducted."
20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall
endorse on the report whether the same has been received
by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify
in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or
the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be
conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of
Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of
Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this
Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the
benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter
making endorsement as 'permitted ' on the police
requisition itself Such an endorsement is not an
order in the eyes of law and as mandated under
Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the
informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should
make an endorsement on it as to how it was
received, either by post or by Muddam and direct
the office to place it before him with a separate
order sheet. No order should be passed on the
requisition itself. The said order sheet should be
continued for further proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine
whether the SHO of the police station has referred
the informant to him with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine
the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious
mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case
to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is
not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her
subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to
permit the police officer to take up the investigation,
he/she shall record a finding to that effect
permitting the police officer to investigate the non-
cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders
permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the
rank and designation of the Police Officer who has
to investigate the case, who shall be other than
informant or the complainant.
21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad
Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019
and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC,
Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under
Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence.
It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has
made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as
follows:--
"Perused materials. Permitted
Sd/-"
22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of
judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting
the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence much
less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate.
23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending
on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani,
are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is
concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby
quashed as against the petitioner is concerned.
24. Registry is directed to forward the copy of the
order to the Director of Karnataka State Judicial Academy,
Bengaluru, for information and necessary action.
25. Registry is also directed to circulate the copy of
the order to all the judicial Magistrates in the State to follow
guidelines laid down in the order."
5. In the case of Sri. Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs.
State of Karnataka and another - Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated
07.11.2024, this Court held as under:
'9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under
Section 504 and 34 of the IPC. They are admittedly non
cognizable. Therefore, a non-cognizable report was
rendered by the jurisdictional police, after interaction on
24.08.2020. The Station House Officer then travels to the
Court of the Magistrate seeking permission for registration
of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 504 and
34 of the IPC, since the offences alleged were non-
cognizable, the nod of the Magistrate under Section 155(2)
of the Cr.P.C. was imperative. The learned Magistrate
passes the following order:
"The PSI of Turuvekere Police Station
approached with requisition seeking permission to
proceed with the investigation of non-cognizable case.
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
It is mentioned that the complainant lodged the
written information about alleged insult caused by the
proposed accused persons.
As per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., there is a
bar for the police officer to proceed with the
investigation of the non-cognizable case without
the order of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try
the case or commit the case for trial.
When, police officer received, the information
about non- cognizable case, then necessarily seek
from permission the Jurisdictional magistrate to
proceed with the investigation.
By considering the request and information
of the complainant, it is revealed that the
information in a non-cognizable case is received by
the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is
proper to accord permission to proceed in
accordance with Law."
The learned Magistrate records that the Police
Officer receives the information about a non-cognizable
offence, then necessarily has to seek permission from
jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed with the investigation.
This is the procedure that is narrated in the order. The so
called application of mind by the learned Magistrate is only
in the words "By considering the request and information of
the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non-
cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the
interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to
proceed in accordance with Law."
10. The afore-quoted words of the learned Magistrate
can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears
application of mind.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
11. The learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor seeks to defend this action on the score that it
is a lengthy order and it does bear application of mind. I
decline to accept the said submission as what is required in
law, while the Magistrate grants permission to register a
crime, is application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in
the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an order
that has even a semblance of application of mind. It is
rather shocking that Magistrates while granting permission,
do not apply their mind and callously grant permission to
register the crime while passing orders under Section
155(2) of the Cr.P.C. These acts of passing orders, which
bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in
docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time and
again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge
in passing of such orders. The Magistrates are still passing
the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act.
12. In the case at hand, the afore-quoted paragraph
is the reason. It is in fact an order which has no reasons.
Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will
not mean an order on application of mind. It is the
application of mind that is necessary in law and not
application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper
that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting
such application of mind."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
6. In the case of Sri.L.S.Tejasvi Surya Vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors passed in Crl.P.No.9961/2021 dated
15.02.2022, this Court held as under:
"Learned High Court Government Pleader
accepts notice for the respondents.
2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the
proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No.51/2019. Petitioner
has also sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated
02.07.2019 and also for quashing the entire
proceedings arising out of C.C.No.3077/2020 pending
before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
3. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the
information made out by a counsel to the 2nd
respondent on 17.04.2019, the 2nd respondent filed a
complaint before the 1st respondent on the same day.
The allegation made out was that one Sri.
Narayanappa had got printed about 2000 copies of
pamphlets on behalf of the petitioner herein who was
the BJP candidate and distributed the same without
mentioning name and address of the printer and
publisher and accordingly, committed offence under
Section 127A of the Representation of People Act,
1951 (for short 'the Act') and action was sought for as
regards the said offence. It is submitted that information
was then made out to the Magistrate as per Annexure-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
C requesting for permission to commence
investigation. On the basis of written requisition at
Annexure-C, Magistrate has endorsed the word
'permitted'.
4. It is submitted that such endorsement is
not in consonance with the requirement under Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C and is clearly in violation of the
directions passed by this Court in the case of
Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The
State Of Karnataka - ILR 2020 KAR 630.
5. It is further submitted that though the
offences made out in the FIR were 127(2) and 127A of
the Act and 171F of IPC, the charge sheet that came to
be filed after investigation only made out offence of
Section 127A of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that
the proceedings consequent to the permission given by
the Magistrate requires to be set aside on the sole
ground that the order is not in consonance with the
requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would also contend that even
on merits, the proceedings are liable to be quashed
as the requirement under Section 127A is only as
regards to the person who prints and cannot in any way
lead to proceedings to be carried out as against the
petitioner who was the candidate.
6. Insofar as the contention that permission
given by the Magistrate is contrary to the mandate
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
under Section 155(2) of the Act, the said contention
requires to be accepted. This Court in the judgment in
the case of Vaggeppa (supra) has pointed out the
procedure to be followed while granting permission for
investigation. Relevant observation made by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.20 is
extracted hereunder:
"20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall
endorse on the report whether the same has
been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2,
the Magistrate has to specify in his order the
rank and designation of the police officer or the
police officer by whom the investigation shall
be conducted. Considering the mandatory
requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C.
and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka
Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to
laid down the following guidelines for the benefit
of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop
hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on
the police requisition itself. Such an
endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law
and as mandated under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the
informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he
should make an endorsement on it as to how it
was received, either by post or by Muddam and
direct the office to place it before him with a
separate order sheet. No order should be passed
on the requisition itself. The said order sheet
should be continued for further proceedings in
the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
whether the SHO of the police station
has referred the informant to him with such
requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should
examine the contents of the requisition with
his/her judicious mind and record finding as to
whether it is a fit case to be investigated. If
the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to
investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made
in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective
satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the
police officer to take up the investigation, he/she
shall record a finding to that effect permitting
the police officer to investigate the non-
cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders
permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify
the rank and designation of the Police Officer
who has to investigate the case, who shall be
other than informant or the complainant."
7. Clearly, the requirement that is made out
is that when the requisition is submitted by the
informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should
make an endorsement on it as to how it was received
and direct the office to place it before him with a
separate order sheet. The Court has clarified that no
order should be passed on the requisition itself and that
the entry to be made in that regard is to be made in the
order sheet and the said order sheet should be
continued for further proceedings. Further direction
has been passed at sub-para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of
the judgment extracted above which also requires the
Magistrate to examine the contents of the requisition
and record a finding as to whether it is a fit case to be
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
investigated and that if the Magistrate finds that it is
not a fit case to be investigated, he shall reject the
prayer made in the requisition. It is further pointed out
that only after his subjective satisfaction that there is a
ground to permit the police officer to take up the
investigation, he shall record a finding to that effect
permitting the police officer to investigate the non-
cognizable offence.
8. It is also clarified that Annexure-C is a
plea made by the 2nd respondent. In accordance with
the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the
informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which
is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police
station having made out necessary entry of the
substance of the information in the book kept as
mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to
examine the informant and the complaint given by him
and then proceed further.
9. Clearly, the said procedure that has been
laid down in the judgment referred to above has not
been followed in the present case. In light of the same,
the endorsement of the Magistrate dated 18.04.2019
is set aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of
the informant being referred to the Magistrate in terms
of the procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) of
Cr.P.C. While it requires to be noticed that as per the
observation in sub- para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the
judgment extracted above, the Magistrate is required to
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
apply his mind as to whether permission for
investigation needs to be granted and accordingly, it
would not be appropriate in the present proceedings to
address the other contentions raised by the petitioner
as regards to the proceedings to be bad in law as
ingredients of Section 127A of the Act are not satisfied.
The said aspect, needless to state is a matter to be
considered by the Magistrate before granting
permission by passing an order under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off
subject to observations made above."
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
impugned order falling foul of the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgments since the same was passed without
application of mind, I am of the view that impugned proceedings
deserves to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
a. The petition is allowed.
b. The impugned criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.614/2018, arising out of Crime
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6893
No.202/2017 registered by the respondent -
Police, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Virajpet, for the offences punishable under
Sections 153(A), (B), 505 (1)(b), 505(1)(c) of IPC,
in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are
hereby quashed.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
