- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1520 CRL.P No. 100323 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100323 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HAJI MALANG S/O. MABU SAB AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. NEAR KUTTI CIRCLE, SIRUGAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAKUNTE, BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1102/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BALLARI (CRIME NO.276/2018 OF COWL BAZAR P.S. BALLARI) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.28 15:16:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1520 CRL.P No. 100323 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 78 of the Karnataka Police Act, is before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on receiving credible information, the complainant and his staff went to the spot, and it was disclosed that accused was involved in playing “Matka” gambling, and upon search, money and cheques were recovered from the petitioner-accused. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 4. The offence under Sections 78 of the Karnataka Police Act are non-cognizable, and before conducting the investigation, the Police were required to obtain an order by the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. On the requisition sent by the Police, the learned Magistrate has endorsed the word "permitted", and same does not satisfy essential elements under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., since the reasons are to be assigned. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1520 CRL.P No. 100323 of 2025 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101997/2019 disposed of on 10.12.2019, at para 18 has held as follows: "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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1520 CRL.P No. 100323 of 2025 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’." 6. Hence, the endorsement "permitted" is not a valid order as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., since, the same is not supported by any reasons, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed; ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1102/2018 on the file of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, and JMFC Court, Ballari, insofar it relates to petitioner-accused herein stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12