- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1517 CRL.P No. 101013 of 2024 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. 101013 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HAJI MALANG S/O. LATE MABU SAB AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. LABORER, R/O. NEAR KUTTI HOTEL CIRCLE, BASAVANA KUNTA, MADINA GALLI, BALLARI-583101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.791/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BALLARI (CRIME NO.343/2017 OF COWL BAZAR P.S. BALLARI) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/SOLE 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 15:16:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1517 CRL.P No. 101013 of 2024 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. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1517 CRL.P No. 101013 of 2024 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’." 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; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1517 CRL.P No. 101013 of 2024 ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.791/2018 on the file of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, and JMFC Court, Ballari, insofar it relates to petitioner-accused herein stands quashed. iii) In view of the disposal of the main petition, interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2