Karnataka High Court
Ambranna vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
CRL.P No. 200854 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200854/2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. AMBRANNA S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O GADDESUGUR,
DIST. YADGIRI-585 201.
2. ESHWAR S/O SEVASINGH RATHOD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE,
Digitally signed R/O YADGIRI-585 201.
by RENUKA
Location:
HIGH COURT 3. SHANKAR RAO S/O RAJARAM PETHKAR,
OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O YADGIRI-585 201.
4. MUBARAK AHMED S/O MAHMAD KHAJA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SURPUR,
DIST. YADGIRI-585 224.
5. SAI S/O VENKATAPPA DURGI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
CRL.P No. 200854 of 2025
R/O NARAYANPET-589 210,
TELANGANA STATE.
6. MAHIPAL S/O KANAKAPPA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O NARAYANPET-585 210,
TELANGANA STATE.
7. DURGAPPA S/O KANAKAPPA DURGA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NARAYANPET-585 210,
TELANGANA STATE.
8. VENELLA YADGIRI S/O RAMULU,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHINNASHANKRAMPET,
MEDAK-502 110,
TELANGANA STATE.
9. MAHANTESH S/O THOTADAPPA,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O RAICHUR-584 101.
10. K. VINAYKUMAR S/O K. GOPALREDDY,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NINGAREDDYPALLI-585 210.
11. K. SHANKAR S/O ESHWARAPPA KAVALI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NARAYANPET-585 210,
TELENGANA STATE.
12. NIMMAGADDA SHARATBABU
S/O NIMMAGADDA PANDURANGA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HYDERABAD-500 001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
CRL.P No. 200854 of 2025
13. S. KRISHNA S/O RAMULU SURVAI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HYDERABAD-500 001.
14. DURGAPPA S/O KRISHNA BAKKA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NARAYANPET-585 210,
TELANGANA STATE.
15. HARIJAN NAGARJUN
S/O HARIJAN NARASIMHALU,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NINGARADDIPALLI-516 217.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK B. MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WADAGERA P.S.,
DIST. YADGIRI,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 21.08.2024 BY THE JMFC
COURT, SHAHAPUR, IN C.C. NO.2339/2024 AND QUASH THE
FIR, COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME
NO.16/2024 OF WADAGER P.S., DIST. YADGIRI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 79 AND 80 OF K.P. ACT,
PENDING IN C.C. NO.2339/2024 ON THE FILE OF JMFC
Court, SHAHAPUR.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
CRL.P No. 200854 of 2025
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in Crime No.16/2024, pending
on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC
(Jn.Dn.), Shahapur, for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, on
the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory
requirements prescribed under Section 155(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard Shri Ashok B. Mulage, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin,
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State and perused the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on
10.01.2024, respondent/Police under the instructions of
PSI of respondent Police Station barged into the recreation
club and disconnected the CCTV recorder and conducted
raid, arrested persons who were involved in playing game
of chance by placing bets. An amount of Rs.15,000/-
along with other material objects were also seized. The
Police registered a complaint in Crime No.16/2024 for the
aforesaid offences on 07.02.2024. The matter was
referred for investigation. The Police after investigation
filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the afore-
quoted offences. The petitioners are arraigned as accused
Nos.1 to 15.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that offences punishable under non-cognizable
offences. On non-cognizable offences, FIR could not have
been registered without at the outset express permission
at the hands of the learned Magistrate and the entire
process is violation of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State,
however, submitted that the endorsement made by the
learned Magistrate permitting the Police is sufficient
compliance.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for
both the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 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:--
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
"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-K:2702
8. 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.
9. A Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli v. State of Karnataka
[(2017) 1 AIR Kant R 461], considered the requirement
of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., in relation to a non-
cognizable offence and at para 10 of the judgment it has
observed as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
"10. S. 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to
be adopted in respect of the information received
by the Officer in charge of a Police Station relating
to commission of non-cognizable offence. As per
sub-section (I) of S.155 Cr. P.C. when an Officer in
charge of Police Station receives the information as
to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he
shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of
the information in a book to be maintained by such
Officer in the prescribed form 'and refer the
informant to the Magistrate'. Sub-section (2) of
S.155 Cr. P.C. makes it clear, that no Police Officer
shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the
order of a Magistrate having power to tty such case
or commit case for trial. Sub-section(1) of S. 155
Cr.P.C., which casts a duty on the station house
officer who receives information as to the
commission of non-cognizable offence to enter or
cause to be entered the information in the
prescribed book and refer the informant to the
Magistrate, does not enable the SHO himself to
approach the Magistrate and seek orders. The
provision makes it clear, that the SHO shall refer
the informant to the Magistrate, thereby, making
clear that it is for the informant to seek the orders
of jurisdictional Magistrate for issue of direction to
the police for investigation of the case. The
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
Magistrate, on being approached by the informant,
if orders investigation, the SHO concerned would
get jurisdiction to register the crime, investigate the
matter and not otherwise."
10. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka
[Crl.P. 5934/2009 decided on 20/8/2013], considered
the scope of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., and has
observed in Para 5 of its order 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 a non-cognizable case
without a order of a Magistrate having power to try
such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
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."
11. Further, in Para 6 of its order the Co-Ordinate
Bench 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
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 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."
12. Therefore, the SHO of the Police Station has no
authority of law unless the jurisdictional Magistrate
permits the Police Officer for investigation of the non-
cognizable offence.
13. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Padubidri Members Lounge v. Director General
and Inspector General of Police [W.P. Nos. 42073-
75/2018 DD:3/10/2012], considered the mandatory
provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., where the
charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of
the K.P. Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it has held as
follows:--
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
"6. As per the above provisions, when an Officer-in-
charge of the police station receives an information
with regard to commission of non-cognizable
offence/s, i) he shall enter or caused to be entered
the substance of the information in a book to be
maintained by the said Officer in a prescribedform
and ii) refer the informant to the Magistrate.
Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P.C.,
mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a
non-cognizable offence without the order of a
Magistrate having power to try such case or commit
such case for trial.
7. In the instant case, police have failed to comply
with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2)
of Cr. P.C. There is nothing on record to show
informant to the concerned Magistrate as required
under Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., or obtained
necessary order as envisaged under Section 155(2)
of Cr. P.C., before embarking upon investigation.
Thus, on the face of it, the respondents are seen to
have violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and
155(2) of Cr. P.C."
14. Further, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court
has issued some guidelines in W.P. No.14076/2021
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2022, at Para Nos.18,
19 and 20, which read as under:
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 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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
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 Officers by whom
the investigation shall be conducted."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
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.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
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 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.
15. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of
judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before
permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
offence much less an order passed by the Learned
Magistrate.
16. In the instant case, Police have failed to comply
with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of
Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the
respondent has referred the informant to the concerned
Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., or
obtained necessary order as envisaged under Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C., before embarking upon investigation.
Thus, on the face of it, the respondent is seen to have
violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of
Cr.P.C.
17. As absolutely there is no permission/order of a
Magistrate upon receiving information in writing by the
concerned Police about non-cognizable offence under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature,
the proceedings cannot be sustained. In view of the
same, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is
allowed.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2702
18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The further proceedings in Crime
No.16/2024, pending in C.C. No.2339/2024 on
the file of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC
(Jn.Dn.), Shahapur, stands quashed, qua the
petitioners.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
