[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rahul @ Rahul V vs State Of Karnataka By on 17 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
CRL.P No. 1571 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2026
(482 (Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. RAHUL @ RAHUL V.,
S/O. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.273, 8TH MAIN,
2ND CROSS, NAGENDRA BLOCK,
BANK COLONY,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BHANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE - 560 050
2. GURUPRASAD @ GURUPRSAD. T
S/O THIBBEGOWDA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
signed by
SANJEEVINI J R/AT NEW NO.6, OLD NO.84/A,
KARISHETTY
Location:
10TH CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
High Court of KATHRIGUPPE,
Karnataka
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
3. BELLIYAPPA @ BELLIYAPPA. R
S/O RAMESH B.V.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO. 124, 9TH MAIN,
2ND 'A' CROSS, NEAR PES COLLEGE,
NAGENDRA BLOCK, SBM COLONY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
CRL.P No. 1571 of 2026
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
(AS PER AADHAR CARD) ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAGHU N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. DR. B.S. SUDHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PSI, CCB SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING,
N.T PET,
BANGALORE CITY,
PIN-560 053.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CC.NO.5490/2024 (CR.NO.229/2023) OF RESPONDENT POLICE
PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC (TRAFIC COURT IV)
BANGALORE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 79, 80 KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
CRL.P No. 1571 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.5490/2024 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963.
2. Heard Sri. Raghu N.R., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material
on record.
3. The petitioners get involved in a crime in Crime
No.229/2023 for the afore-quoted offences. Prior to registration
of the crime, as obtaining under Sub-section (2) of Section 155
of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has granted permission by a
word 'permitted'. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand,
the alleged offences are the ones punishable under Sections 79
and 80 of the Act, which are non-cognizable offences and for
non-cognizable offences, a nod of the learned Magistrate under
Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory. In the case at
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
hand, the learned Magistrate has accorded permission by the
word 'permitted' and such permissions being granted by the
learned Magistrate are held to be illegal and the crimes have
been quashed by the co-ordinate benches and this Court as
well, by following the judgment rendered in the case of
VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630, wherein, the
learned single Judge was considering the issue whether the
endorsement 'permitted' would be in compliance of Section 155
(2) of the Cr.P.C., wherein, it is held as follows:
"3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is
misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable
as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore,
the Police have no authority to investigate the crime. It
is further submitted that the Police have not complied
with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr. P.C.
When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received
information regarding commission of non-cognizable
offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be
maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to
he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of
Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall
investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a
Magistrate having power to try such case or commit
such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that
there is no iota of evidence that the above said
mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no
speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate
permitting the Police to take up investigation. Therefore,
the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet are liable
to be quashed.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the offence punishable under Section 87
of the K.P. Act is non-cognizable one and therefore, as
per Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., the informant PSI ought
to have been referred to the jurisdictional Magistrate
and the jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have passed
the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up
investigation of the case and these are the mandatory
requirements of the provisions under Section 155(1) and
155(2) of Cr. P.C. which are not followed in the present
case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.
8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence
punishable under Section 87 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:--
"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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
(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."
9. 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.
10. 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., where case relates to a non-
cognizable offence, in para 10 of the judgment this
Court has observed as follows:
"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
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
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 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."
11. 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., has observed in para 5 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
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
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
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."
12. This Court in paragraph 6 has further 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
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
the Magistrate on such 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."
13. 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.
14. 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 CrP.C., where the charge sheet was filed for
the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act. In
paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:--
"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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
on record to show that the respondents have
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 respondents are seen to have
violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and
155(2) of Cr. P.C."
15. Again this Court, in the case
of Veeranagouda v. The State of Karnataka [ Crl.P. No.
102021/2018 decided on 11/1/2019] , considered the
requirements of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and
has held in para 9 as follows:--
"The Counsel appearing for the petitioner'
also brought to the notice of this Court that
when a requisition was given to the Magistrate,
only an endorsement is made as permitted to
investigate as per section 155 of Cr. P.C. on the
very request letter itself and the same is not in
accordance with law. The concerned Magistrate
did not apply his mind and passed any
considered order. On the requisition only an
endorsement is made and the same is not the
permission in the eye of law. Therefore in reality
it is not permission at all and the prosecution
has not satisfied the Court that mandatory
requirements are complied before proceeding
with the investigation in the matter. Legal
aspect has not been complied and the same has
been over looked by the Court below while
ordering for registering the criminal case against
the petitioners' herein. Looking to these
materials it goes to show that it is the abuse of
process of Court to continue the proceedings.
Not only it is wasting of valuable time and
energy of the Court. Even if the trial is
proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the
matter."
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9612
HC-KAR
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 Learned Magistrate
seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable
offence."
In the light of the afore-quoted order and for the reasons
aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.5490/2024,
pending on the file of the JMFC
(Traffic Court-IV), Bangalore, stand quashed
qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 145
