[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sanjay Biswal vs State Of Karnataka By Kumbalagudu Ps on 23 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
CRL.P No. 880 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.880 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SANJAY BISWAL,
S/O GOPINATH BISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A: NO.313, 4TH CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA,
RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
2. RAJASHEKAR B J,
S/O DODDAJAVARE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A: NO.24, CHIKKABANASAVADI,
Digitally
signed by HONNANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
SANJEEVINI J KERAGOUDU POST,
KARISHETTY
Location: BANGALORE - 560 043.
High Court of
Karnataka
3. ADHARSH H M,
S/O MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A : HACHALLI,
KERAGODU POST,
MANDYA - 571446.
4. PANCHALINGA C P,
S/O PRAKASH,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
CRL.P No. 880 of 2026
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A: CHIKKANANASAVADI,
KERAGODU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA - 571450.
5. SYED SHAKIR,
S/O SYED KHARIMULLA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A : NO.12/1, 17TH CROSS,
LAKKASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560030.
6. ABDUL ALEEM,
S/O ABDUL JABEER,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A : NO.8, 4TH CROSS,
MD BLOCK,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560003.
7. KAUSAR PASHA D M,
S/O MEHAMMAD GHAUS,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A : NO.19, BBMP CENTRAL,
SHIVAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560051.
8. MEHAMMAD SULTAN KURESHI,
S/O ABDUL WAHID,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A : NO.6, HKP ROAD,
SELATO HOUSE,
BRADVE CROSS,
BANGALORE - 560051.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
CRL.P No. 880 of 2026
HC-KAR
9. MAQSOOD,
S/O MAHAMMAD SALIMUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A : NO.132M, B STREET,
2ND MAIN, JJ NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560018.
10. KHALEEM
S/O ABDUL HAFIZ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A : NO.8, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560051.
11. PIRDOS AHAMMAD
S/O ABDUL HAJIZ,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/A: NO.28, 4TH CROSS,
SULTHANNAGAR,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560051.
12. RAMESH RAO,
S/O CHATTOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A: NO.79, 1ST CROSS,
RAGAVA NAGAR,
NT LAYOUT,
BANGALORE- 560026.
13. DHANANJAY
S/O HANUMANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/A : NO.21, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
CRL.P No. 880 of 2026
HC-KAR
BANGALORE-560040.
14. CHAND ISMAIL
S/O CHAND KHALIL,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/A : NO.21, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560051.
15. BABU
S/O PHARAOH JOHN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT : BAMBU BAJAR,
GUNDA ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560051.
16. BALAKRISHNA
S/O RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT : CHIKKABANA,
NARYANAPURA VILLAGE,
SANTHE BACHOHALLI HOBLI,
K R PETE,
MANDYA
17. MAHESH
S/O MAHADEV GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT : VATALU VILLAGE,
MUGURU HOBLI,
T. NARSIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
CRL.P No. 880 of 2026
HC-KAR
18. MANJUNATH,
S/O RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT: KAMALAPURA VILLAGE,
RAVANDOOR HOBLI,
PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK
MYSORE
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ADARSHA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUMBALAGUDU PS,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DR.B S SUDHAKAR,
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT,
SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 56.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.11317/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II
ADDL.CJM BANGALORE RURAL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 79
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
CRL.P No. 880 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1/KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Adarsha R., appearing for
the petitioners, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material
on record.
2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the
following prayer:
"a. Call for the entire records in CC No.11317/2025
pending on the file of Hon'ble II Addl Chief Judicial
Magistrate Bangalore Rural for the offences
punishable under section 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act,1963., registered by the
Respondent No.1/Kumbalagudu PS.
b. Quash the entire criminal proceedings in CC
No.11317/2025 pending on the file of Hon'ble II
Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate Bangalore Rural for
the offences punishable under section 79 and 80 of
the Karnataka Police Act,1963., registered by the
Respondent No.1/Kumbalagudu PS.
c. Pass such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
present case in the interest of justice and equity."
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.101457/2025 disposed on 10.06.2025, wherein it has
held as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. This petition filed by accused No.3
under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS" for short) to
quash the cognizance dated 24.07.2024 and
entire proceedings initiated against the
petitioner - accused No.3 in C.C.No.459/2024
on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC-II Court at Gadag arising out of Crime
No.33/2024 of Betageri Police Station
registered for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
("KP Act" for short).
3. Brief facts of the case of the
prosecution are as under:
On 08.04.2024 at about 7:30 p.m. the
Police Inspector, Betageri Police Station
received a credible information, wherein it was
alleged that some unknown persons near
Rangappajjanamath, Betageri were involved in
Cricket betting and betting on the score and
result of the IPL 20-20 match held between
Chennai Super Kings Vs. Kolkata Knight Riders
at M.A.Chidambaram Cricket Stadium in
Chennai, Tamil Nadu. This information was
received at about 7.15 p.m. Hence, the Police
Inspector and his staff conducted the raid at the
alleged spot and had drawn the recovery
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
panchanama in between 7:20 p.m. and 8.20
p.m. on the same day.
4. Under seizure panchanama, the
Police Officer seized betting note book,
Rs.2,500/- and Rs.900/- from the accused
persons. Hence, the Station House Officer
Betageri Police Station has registered a case in
Crime No.33/2024 for the offence punishable
under Section 78 (3) of KP Act. This led to
registration of FIR and investigation. Taking
exception to the same, the petitioner - accused
No.3 filed this criminal petition.
5. The petitioner has stated that the
complaint is misconceived and the alleged
offence is a non-cognizable one under the
provisions of BNSS (Cr.P.C.). The police have
no authority to investigate the crime and they
have not complied the mandatory requirements
of Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. It is contended
that when the Officer In-charge of the Police
Station received an information regarding
commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall
enter the same in the Register maintained in
the said police station and refer the informant
to the Magistrate. Further as per Section 155
(2) of Cr.P.C, no police officer shall investigate
a non-cognizable offence without the order of
the Magistrate, having power to try such case
or to commit such case for trial. But there is no
iota of evidence to show that the above
requirements are complied with in the present
case. Though there is an order passed by the
jurisdictional Magistrate for permitting the
police to take up the investigation, but there is
no speaking order to that effect. The alleged
raid was conducted in between 7:20 p.m. to
8:20 p.m, however, the information was
received in the Police Station at 9:55 p.m. on
the said date. Therefore, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners liable to be
quashed.
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
6. Learned High Court Government
Pleader submitted that, the jurisdictional
Magistrate has permitted to the concerned
Police Officer to take up the investigation and
therefore there is substantial compliance of
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. It is not in dispute that the alleged
offence under Section 78(3) of the KP Act is
non cognizable one and when the report is
received by the SHO of the police station in
respect of commission of non cognizable
offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory
requirements under Sections 155 (1) and 155
(2) of Cr.P.C. Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of
Cr.P.C read as under:
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.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
8. Therefore in view of the aforesaid
proposition of law, it is the duty of the police
officer to enter the substance of information in
the prescribed book and refer the informant to
the Magistrate as required under Section
155(1) of Cr.P.C and thereafter the
jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an
order permitting the police officer to investigate
the case as required under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C. Therefore, unless the police officer is
permitted by the Magistrate in an order to
investigate the non-cognizable offence, the
police officer does not get jurisdiction to
investigate the matter and file final report or
charge sheet.
9. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga
Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of
Karnataka1, considering non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2)
of Cr.P.C., has held as under:
"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
Practice, this Court
proceed to laid down the
following guidelines for the
benefit of the judicial
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
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."
10. Whereas in this case, the
information was received on 08.04.2024 at 9.55
p.m. however, the investigating officer
conducted raid in between 7:20 p.m and 8:20
p.m., on the same day.
11. In view of the mandatory
requirements stated in Sections 155 (1) and
155 (2) of Cr.P.C and the ratio laid down in the
case stated supra, the SHO of police station has
no authority, unless jurisdictional Magistrate
permits for investigation of non-cognizable
offence. Whereas in the instant case, the
learned Magistrate has passed an order on the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
requisition submitted by the SHO of Police
Station by awaiting the orders as "you are
hereby permitted to register the case and the
SHO of Betageri P.S. shall investigate the
matter and submit the final report". But this
Court in catena of decision held that the said
endorsement on the requisition submitted by
the Police Officer is not a judicious order having
applied its mind and there is no application of
judicious mind in permitting the police officer to
take up the investigation for the non-cognizable
offence. Therefore, the SHO of a police station
if received a complaint from the PSI and in
turn, the SHO has to submit a requisition to the
jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to
investigate an offence punishable under Section
78(3) of the KP Act, which is a non-cognizable
offence.
12. It is seen that the jurisdictional
Magistrate has ade an endorsement stating that
'SHO is directed to register the case and
investigate the matter and submit final report.
Therefore, absolutely there is no application of
judicious mind by the learned Magistrate before
permitting he police officer to investigate a non-
cognizable offence, much less, an order passed
by the learned Magistrate.
13. It shows that the respondent police
had no authority to investigate the matter.
Under these circumstances, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner-accused No.3, by
the learned magistrate are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the
following :
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The cognizance dated 24.07.2024 and
the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner - accused No.3 in Crime
No.33/2024 of Betageri Police Station
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16229
HC-KAR
registered for the offence punishable
under Section 78(3) of the KP Act in
C.C.No.459/2024 pending on the file of II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II,
Gadag, in so far as petitioner - accused
No.3 is concerned are quashed.
In view of disposal of the criminal
petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for
consideration and accordingly the same is
disposed of."
In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.11317/2025 pending
before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore Rural, stand quashed, qua these
petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51
