- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5802 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. MADHU. S S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O SWARG BAR BUILDING, SARAKKI GATE KANAKAPURA ROAD, J P NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078. 2. VIJAYA @ VIJI S/O SHIVU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO.111, 18TH CROSS, GANAPATHI PURA J P NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078. 3. JAGADISHWAR REDDY T @ REDDY E G S/O LATE ITTI REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.2/6, BALIJAPALLI MEHABUB NAGARMAHABUBAD TELAGANA STATE-506 101. 4. PRAKASH ALIS HANUMESH S/O BASAVEGOWDA AGE 41 YEARS R/O NO 09, 2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN, HEGGAAHALLI SUNKADA KATTE BENGALURU – 560 091. 5. VENU D S ALIS VENUGOPAL S/O NANJEGOWDRU AGED 32 YEARS R/O DODDA GOLLAHALLI HRBBUR, TUMAKURU 572 214. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 6. NARENDRA S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO 23, MAHADESHWARA MAIN ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU 560 091. 7. MARISWAMY S/O CHIKAKAAIDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO 129, 3RD CROSS HOYSALA NAGARA NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU 560 072. 8. DILIP S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NO 52, SRINIVAS NAGARA SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU 560 091. 9. SURESH S/O VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O NO 33, VINAYAKA NAGARA 2ND CROSS , R T NAGAR BENGALURU 560 032. 10. VENKATESH S/O TIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO 1/1/235, 5/A KAFAR, HYDERABAD TELANGANA 473 585. 11. PALLE VENKATESH GOWDA @ VENKATESHA S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.156, 7TH CROSS, KAMAKSHI PALY, BENGALURU-560 079. 12. CHENNARAJU .C S/O CHANNABASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.50, 7TH CROSS, RAJEEVGANDI NAGARA, JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 078. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 13. SUBBAREDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O SANKIRENI PALLI, PAGADIYALA MANDALAM, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH-516 001. 14. ADINARAYANA S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.8, 6TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA NAGARA, TUMAKURU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010. 15. HARIBABU @ HARI S/O NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.3/4, KAJEEPURAM, HONGOLH HYDERABAD CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH-523 001. 16. JAYPAL S/O PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. 17. SATYANARAYANA @ SATYA S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO.7/77, HEMINENIWARI PAALYA GUNTUR ANDHRA PRADESH 522 002. 18. RAMAKRISHNA @ PANIKALAPATHI S/O ISHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O PADATOOR VILLAGE, KADAPA ANDHRA PRADESH 516 001. 19. VENKATA REDDY S/O KASHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NO.2, 3rd MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGARA YALAHANKA BENGALURU 560 017. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 20. SACHIDANANDA S/O LATE RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO.07, NYANAPPANAHALLI HULIMVAU BG ROAD, BENGALURU 560 076. 21. RAMAKANTHA POOJARI S/O MAHABALA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O BAINDURU, KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT 576 201. 22. RAVICHANDRA S/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O KOTTACHARAVU PUTTAPARTHI JILLE ANANTPUR ANDHRA PRADESH 515 134. 23. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.111, 2nd CROSS, 2nd MAIN B G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 076. 24. RAMESH S/O TIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O MADAKASHIRA PUTTAPARTHI JILLE KOPPAL 583 231. 25. SHIVAKUMAR S/O TIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O SHREE RAM NAGARA, GANGAVATHI TQ, KOPPAL 583 227. 26. MOUNESH S/O ISHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O SHREE RAM NAGARA GANGAVATHI TQ, KOPPAL – 583 227. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 27. NAGARAJ S/O SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS KARNATAKA FAMILIES ASSOCIATION ® CLUB, 4TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.96, ROYAL ENFIELD SHOWROOM BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. 28. LOHIT S/O SATHYAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS KARNATAKA FAMILIES ASSOCIATION ® CLUB, 4TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.96, ROYAL ENFIELD SHOWROOM BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. D A SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CCB SPECIAL ENQUIRIES WING, NT PETE BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THEJESH.P, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4117/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE MMTC I MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 79 AND 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.4117/2023 pending on the file of MMTC-I Mayohall at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to a requisition given by the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short “the said Act of 1963”), which are non- cognizable offences, learned Magistrate proceeded to grant permission for investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., by passing a cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking order without assigning valid reasons, which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the cases of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri. Krishnappa - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024. 4. In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630, this Court held as under: “ 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. 17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable offence. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non- cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non- cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:— “INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION *1. Report under Section 154.—(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam. 2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.” 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. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 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 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. 21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:— - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 “Perused materials. Permitted Sd/-” 22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence much less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate. 23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby quashed as against the petitioner is concerned. 24. Registry is directed to forward the copy of the order to the Director of Karnataka State Judicial Academy, Bengaluru, for information and necessary action. 25. Registry is also directed to circulate the copy of the order to all the judicial Magistrates in the State to follow guidelines laid down in the order.” 5. In the case of Sri. Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024, this Court held as under: ‘9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 504 and 34 of the IPC. They are admittedly non cognizable. Therefore, a non-cognizable report was - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 rendered by the jurisdictional police, after interaction on 24.08.2020. The Station House Officer then travels to the Court of the Magistrate seeking permission for registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 34 of the IPC, since the offences alleged were non- cognizable, the nod of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. was imperative. The learned Magistrate passes the following order: "The PSI of Turuvekere Police Station approached with requisition seeking permission to proceed with the investigation of non-cognizable case. It is mentioned that the complainant lodged the written information about alleged insult caused by the proposed accused persons. As per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., there is a bar for the police officer to proceed with the investigation of the non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial. When, police officer received, the information about non- cognizable case, then necessarily seek from permission the Jurisdictional magistrate to proceed with the investigation. By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non-cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law." The learned Magistrate records that the Police Officer receives the information about a non-cognizable offence, then necessarily has to seek permission from jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed with the investigation. This is the procedure that is narrated in the order. The so called application of mind by the learned Magistrate is only - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 in the words "By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non- cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law." 10. The afore-quoted words of the learned Magistrate can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears application of mind. 11. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to defend this action on the score that it is a lengthy order and it does bear application of mind. I decline to accept the said submission as what is required in law, while the Magistrate grants permission to register a crime, is application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an order that has even a semblance of application of mind. It is rather shocking that Magistrates while granting permission, do not apply their mind and callously grant permission to register the crime while passing orders under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. These acts of passing orders, which bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time and again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge in passing of such orders. The Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act. 12. In the case at hand, the afore-quoted paragraph is the reason. It is in fact an order which has no reasons. Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on application of mind. It is the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5900 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2024 application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.” 6. In the instant case, except stating that the requisition has been perused, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any other reasons as to why permission is being granted in favour of the respondent-Police to conduct investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and hence, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4117/2023, arising out of Crime No.254/2022 registered by the respondent - Police, on the file of the MMTC-I, Mayohall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41