- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101302 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MEHABOOBKHAN S/O. IMAMAKHAN NAGANUR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: SHIGGAON, SALAGERI ONI, TQ: SHIGGAON, HAVERI – 581 113. 2. KASIMASAB S/O. GOUSUMIYA ATTAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/AT: SHIGGAON, SALAGERI ONI, TQ: SHIGGAON, HAVERI – 581 113. 3. GOUSAMODIN S/O. ABDULAGANI NAREGAL, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/AT: SHIGGAON, MAKAN ONI, TQ: SHIGGAON, HAVERI – 581 113. 4. SADIK S/O. GOUSAMODIN SAVANUR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/AT: SHIGGAON, SALAGERI ONI, TQ: SHIGGAON, HAVERI – 581 113. 5. NEELAPPA S/O. SHIVAMURTEPPA HAVERI, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/AT: SHIGGAON, NAGARBHAVI ONI, TQ: SHIGGAON, HAVERI – 581 113. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SHIGGAON POLICE STATION, HAVERI, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 04.07.2018 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO. 4, 6, 7, 9 AND 10/PETITIONERS IN SHIGGAON PS CRIME NO. 135/2018 WHICH IS REGISTERED IN C.C.NO. 416/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT SHIGGAON FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF K.P. ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in CC No.416/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘K.P. Act’ for short]. The Police officials on 13.06.2018 at 5:00 pm on receiving credible information, went to the spot and saw that the said petitioners and others were playing Andhar-Bahar. The Police officers seized the cash and cards and lodged the first information and a complaint came to be registered in Crime No.135/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of K.P. Act. Thereafter, the Police have filed a chargesheet against the petitioners for the said offence and based on the same, a case came to be registered in CC No.416/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggoan, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 proceedings of the said case are sought to be quashed in the present petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioners for the offence punishable are under Sections 79 and 80 of the K.P. Act are non-cognizable and the permission has to be sought as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C of the learned Magistrate to conduct the investigation. On receipt of the said requisition, the learned Magistrate has to pass a detailed order. In the present case, the learned Magistrate on receiving the requisition has written the words ‘”permitted” on the requisition itself and it is the violation of the guidelines issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. The State of Karnataka1. He 1 ILR 2020 KAR 630 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 submits that endorsing the word permitted does not satisfy the essential elements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C since the reasons are not assigned. With this he prayed to allow the petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State would contend that the learned Magistrate after receiving the requisition has granted the permission by writing the word ‘permitted’ on the requisition and it complies Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. 5. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vaggeppa supra has held as under; 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 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'. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5426 CRL.P No. 101302 of 2025 6. Hence, the endorsement permitted is not a valid one as specified under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., since the same is not supported by any reasons. The continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.416/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggoan, in sofaras the petitioners/ accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the K.P Act stands quashed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE PJ/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57