- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10219 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: LOKESH NAIK S/O NARAYANA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O JAJURAYANAHALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, PAVAGADA CIRCLE, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 003) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.541/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C PAVAGADA (CR.NO.277/2019 OF PAVAGADA P.S) PAVAGADA CIRCLE TUMKRU DISTRICT CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 87 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.10. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.541/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 insofar as petitioner/accused No.10 is concerned. 2. A crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused on the basis that the complainant received credible information at the Police Station that one Naresh Husenpur, along with others, was engaged in playing a game of chance on Government Kharab land near Kodamadagu. Pursuant to this information, a case was registered and a charge sheet has now been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the initiation of the criminal prosecution is in clear violation of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Reliance is placed on the Spot - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 Panchanama and the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate referring the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that although the FIR was registered on 20.12.2019, it was received by the jurisdictional Magistrate only on the following day at 4:30 p.m., whereas the investigation by the concerned police officer had already been completed at approximately 11:15 a.m. on 20.12.2019. In view of these facts, it is argued that the mandate of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was not complied with, thereby vitiating the investigation and rendering the charge sheet invalid. 4. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a co- ordinate bench of this Court in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in 2020 (1) KCCR 371. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State contends that due procedure was followed, and the investigation was undertaken only after obtaining the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 requisite permission, following which the charge sheet was filed. Accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is warranted. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused the charge sheet materials. 7. On a close examination of the material on record, it is evident that the alleged incident took place on 20.12.2019. The FIR in Crime No.277/2019 was registered on the same date at approximately 5:30 p.m. However, the endorsement on the FIR indicating receipt by the jurisdictional Magistrate clearly shows that the FIR was received only on the following day, i.e., 21.12.2019 at about 4:30 p.m. A document of critical importance is the Spot Panchanama, which was conducted on 20.12.2019 at approximately 11:15 a.m. A careful perusal of this document satisfies this Court that the investigating officer had, in fact, concluded the investigation regarding a non- cognizable offence prior to obtaining the requisite - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 permission from the Magistrate, thereby acting in contravention of the mandate of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Notably, this crucial aspect was neither considered nor examined by the jurisdictional Magistrate while referring the matter to the Police Officer for investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. 8. This Court also observes that the order sheet maintained by the Magistrate bears the date 20.12.2019, whereas the FIR was received only on 21.12.2019. This reflects a fundamental procedural irregularity on the part of the Magistrate. While the Magistrate issued directions permitting the jurisdictional Police Officer to investigate after receiving the NCR acknowledgment on 20.12.2019, by that time, the Police Officer had already completed the investigative exercise, including preparation of the Spot Panchanama at 11:15 a.m. on 20.12.2019. On a holistic examination of these facts, it becomes evident that the Police Officer undertook the investigation of a non- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 cognizable offence prior to obtaining the statutory authorization from the Magistrate, in clear violation of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above, it is manifest that the investigation conducted and the subsequent filing of the final report are vitiated, in light of the principles laid down by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as relied upon by the petitioner. The legal position is clear that any investigation in respect of a non-cognizable offence, undertaken without prior permission from the Magistrate, is not sustainable. This Court is, therefore, fully convinced that the initiation of criminal prosecution in the present case is in direct contravention of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., and, in consequence, the proceedings arising therefrom cannot be allowed to continue. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds, and this Court passes the following order: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38101 CRL.P No. 10219 of 2024 ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.541/2020, arising out of Crime No.277/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.10, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11