[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Imtiyaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533
                                                       CRL.P No. 200093 of 2026


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH
                           DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                              BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200093 OF 2026
                                      (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   MOHAMMED IMTIYAZ
                           S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SOUDAGAR
                           AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                           R/O 05TH CROSS, HUSSAINI GARDEN,
                           KALABURAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585101.

                      2.   MOHAMMED IDRIS
                           S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SOUDAGAR,
                           AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
                           R/O 05TH CROSS, HUSSAINI GARDEN,
                           KALABURAGI, DIST:KALABURAGI-585101.
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by
                      (BY SRI. SHIVASHARANA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI      AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           THROUGH RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
                           POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI,
                           DIST: KALABURAGI-585103.
                           R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                           KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.

                      2.   ABDUL GANI
                           S/O MAINODDIN BHAGVAN,
                           AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
                           R/O HUSSAINI GARDEN,
                           PLAZA APARTMENT, KALABURAGI,
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533
                                      CRL.P No. 200093 of 2026


HC-KAR




    DIST: KALABURAGI-585101.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
     SRI. M SUDHAKAR RAO ADV., FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI IN C.C NO.12583/2025 ON ITS
FILE ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.143/2024 FILED BY
RESPONDENT     NO.1   RAGHAVENDRA     POLICE    STATION,
KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.115(2),
352, 351(2) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in

C.C.No.12583/2025, arising out of Crime No.143/2024,

registered by Raghavendranagar Police Station,

Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections

115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w Section 190 of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity "BNS, 2023"), pending

on the file of II-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533

HC-KAR

2. The abridged facts of the case are, there was a

dispute between the petitioners and the

complainant/respondent No.2 in respect of tender of PDS

(Public Distribution System) rice. Respondent No.2 is

running a Global Transport business and the petitioners

are running I.M. Transport business. On 19.11.2024,

respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the

petitioners at Jevargi Police Station in connection with

tender. As such, on 20.11.2024 at about 9:30 a.m., when

respondent No.2 was in his house in Hussain Garden

Apartment, petitioners trespassed and abused in filthy

language and also assaulted him. Accordingly, he lodged a

complaint on 20.11.2024, which registered in Crime

No.143/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections

115(2), 49, 352 and 351(2) r/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023.

In respect of the same incident, the petitioners also lodged

the complaint against respondent No.2, which was

registered in Crime No.144/2024 before respondent No.1-

Police. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police investigated

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533

HC-KAR

the case and laid charge sheet against the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w

Section 190 of BNS, 2023. Accordingly, learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioners preferred the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that all the

offences invoked in this case are non-cognizable and

without obtaining permission/sanction from the Magistrate

as contemplated under Section 174 of BNS, respondent

No.1-Police registered the FIR and the learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the offences. As such, he submits that

the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his

arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533

HC-KAR

Gurulinga Jangaligi vs. The State Of Karnataka

reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630. Accordingly, he prays to

allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for

respondent No.2 opposed the petition on the ground that,

now the charge-sheet has been laid and learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and there are

sufficient materials against the petitioners. Accordingly,

they pray to dismiss the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration both on

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

respective parties and the documents available on record.

7. As could be gathered from records, admittedly,

the offences invoked in this complaint are non-cognizable

in nature. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at

paragraph No.20 of Vaggeppa case supra, laid the

mandatory procedure to be followed in a case of non-

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533

HC-KAR

cognizable offence for permitting to conduct investigation

by the learned Magistrate as under:

"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, 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 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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533

HC-KAR

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."

8. On perusal of the above guidelines issued by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is clear that the

learned Magistrate should examine the contents of

requisition with his/her judicious mind and record the

findings and thereafter permit the Police Officer to proceed

for investigation, whether it is a fit case to be investigated.

9. In the case on hand, without any such

permission/sanction, the police have registered the case

against the petitioners and laid the charge-sheet. The

learned Magistrate also mechanically took cognizance of

the offences. In such circumstances, the proceedings

cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Accordingly,

without delving into the merits of the case and in view of

the above cited judgment, petition succeeds and

continuation of proceedings against the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1533

HC-KAR

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable under

law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

    (ii)   The           proceedings            against            the
           petitioners/accused            Nos.1       and     2     in

C.C.No.12583/2025, arising out of Crime No.143/2024, registered by Raghavendranagar Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of II-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed.