Karnataka High Court
Mahantesh S/O Sangappa Angadi vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301
CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101166 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHANTESH S/O SANGAPPA ANGADI,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. KODIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ILKAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580 011.
2. KUMAR S/O Y. LAMANI,
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER,
Digitally
signed by
R/O. CPC 1160, ILKAL RURAL P.S.,
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
Location:
TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125,
S HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION BY QUASHING THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME
NO.23/2025 REGISTERED WITH ILKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P. ACT
PENDING ON THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301
CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND JMFC COURT, HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused no.1 is before this Court under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
Crime No.23/2025 registered by Ilkal Rural Police Station,
Bagalkot District, for the offence punishable under Section
78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that there is no
compliance of Section 174(2) of BNSS, 2023, in the present
case. He also submits that the judgment of the coordinate bench
of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI
VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2020 KAR 630, has laid
down certain guidelines to be followed in the case of non-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301
HC-KAR
cognizable offences and the same is also not complied with in the
present case. He accordingly prays to allow the petition.
4. Learned HCGP has opposed the petition and submits that
prior to the registration of FIR, there is compliance of Section
174(2) of BNSS, 2023. She accordingly prays to dismiss the
petition.
5. FIR in Crime No.23/2025 is undisputedly registered for the
offences punishable under Section 78(3) of Act. The said offence
is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, compliance of Section
174(2) of BNSS, 2023, becomes mandatory. This Court in the
case of VAGGEPPA (supra) at paragraph No.20 has observed as
follows:
"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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301
HC-KAR
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 prayer
made in the requisition. Only after his/her
subjective satisfaction that there is a ground
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301
HC-KAR
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. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the
impugned criminal proceedings is allowed to continue, the same
would amount to abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, the
following order:
8. Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime
No.23/2025 registered by Ilkal Rural Police Station, Bagalkot
District, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is quashed as against the petitioner.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
CT:BCK
