Karnataka High Court
Sri Gajabarasab S/O Sikandar Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
CRL.P No. 100732 of 2024
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. 100732 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GAJABARASAB S/O SIKANDAR NADAF
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O 8TH CROSS, VIVEKANAND NAGAR
GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN 591307.
2. SRI UMARKHAN S/O MAHEBBUKHAN KHANSAB
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: WELDING WORK
R/O ASHRAYA BADAVANE, GOKAK,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN 591307.
3. SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LAXMAN GUDI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED
R/O ASHRAYA BADAVANE, GOKAK,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-PIN 591307.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHCHIDANAND B. P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
AND:
S Location:
HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THROUGH IO GOKAK TOWN PS
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4176/2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO
3.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
CRL.P No. 100732 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused nos.1 to 3 are before this Court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.4176/2023 pending before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge &
JMFC, Gokak, arising out of Crime No.70/2023 registered by
Gokak Town Police Station, Belagavi District, for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act,
1963.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
offence for which FIR has been registered is a non-cognizable
offence. There is no compliance of the requirement of Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C in the present case. The learned Magistrate has
allegedly granted permission on the requisition made by the
police seeking permission to investigate the case. The same
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
HC-KAR
cannot be considered as compliance of 155(2) of Cr.P.C in view
of judgment of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA
JANGALIGI (JANGALAGI) V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI, KAGWAD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI - ILR
2020 KAR 630. He further submits that even before registration
of FIR, raid was conducted and the articles used by the accused
persons for the purpose of conducting matka were seized under
a panchanama, which is impermissible.
4. Learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however,
does not dispute the submission made by learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
5. FIR in Crime No.70/2023 is undisputedly registered for the
offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police
Act. The said offence is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore,
compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C becomes mandatory. In
the case on hand, it is seen that on the requisition made by the
Police before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking his permission
to investigate the case, the learned Magistrate has made
endorsement granting permission to register and investigate the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
HC-KAR
case. This Court in Vaggeppa's case (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.
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
HC-KAR
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 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".
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
HC-KAR
6. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is
compliance of requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, in the
present case.
7. The material on record would go to show that on receipt of
the credible information, the first informant and his staff had
conducted raid to the alleged spot and had seized the money
that was used for the purpose of conducting matka. The seized
articles were subjected to panchanama and thereafter, were
brought to the police station and after obtaining permission
under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC from the jurisdictional Magistrate,
FIR in Crime No.70/2023 was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of the K.P.Act.
8. Undisputedly, the offence for which the FIR has been
registered is a non-cognizable offence. Even prior to obtaining
permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC., the raid
was conducted in the present case by the first informant along
with other police staff and certain articles and cash which was
used for conducting Matka was also seized and subjected to
panchanama. The said panchanama is part of the charge sheet,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11290
HC-KAR
which is filed in the present case. Therefore, it is apparent that
the investigation had commenced in the present case even
before registration of FIR. Under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the impugned proceedings if allowed to continue,
the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly,
the following order:
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings
in C.C.No.4176/2023 pending before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge
& JMFC, Gokak, arising out of Crime No.70/2023 registered by
Gokak Town Police Station, Belagavi District, for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act,
1963, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners
herein are concerned.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
CT:GSM
