- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102358 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAMAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BELAKUD, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. KALLOLI VILLAGE, TALUKA. MUDALGI, DIST. BELAGAVI -591220. 2. RUDRAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA TORAGALLA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. M K HUBBLI VILLAGE, TALUKA. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI- 590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. PRIYANKA H. PAWAR, AND SRI. A.K. INGALE, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE GOKAK POLICE STATION GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD- 580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THAT THE APPLICATION U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. MAY BE ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE IN CRIME NO. 125/2008 GOKAK POLICE STATION CC NO.1626/2011 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 133 OF REPRESENTATIVE OF PEOPLE ACT 1951, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners are accused No.2 and 8 qua the other accused. 2. This Court in Criminal Petition No.102438/2023 on 05.10.2023 had passed the following: 1. Petitioners are accused No.9. Qua the accused Nos.3 and 7, this Court in Crl.P.No.100121/2022 has quashed the proceedings. 2. The Learned HCGP would also admit the position. In the light of the quashment of the proceedings qua accused No.3 and 7, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief that is granted to the other accused. 3. This court while quashing the proceedings against the accused Nos.3 and 7 has held as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 “3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP would in unison submit that the issue in the petition stands covered by plethora of judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this Court, the latest of which is rendered on 8.9.2021 in Crl.P.No.100550/2021, which is concerned the very crime against accused nos.4 and 6, wherein this Court has held as follows:” “5. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C is a mandatory provision which mandates that, no Police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without an order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. 6. On a detailed discussion of the RP Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (1996) 11 SCC 557 in the case of Keshv Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, has held that.” “Election – Representation of People Act, 195-S.31- Investigation into, and taking cognizance of offence under – Legality – Being a non- cognizable offence, investigation into offence under S.31 without an order of a competent Magistrate under S.155(2) Cr.P.C., held, illegal – Hence, the Magistrate could not take cognizance thereof upon the report submitted on completion of such investigation –Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.2(c) & (d), 154, 155(2) & 190(1)(a)(b).” 7. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shashil s/o Gangadhar Namoshi v. The State of Karnataka and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 another in Criminal Petition No.200420/2015 has held that taking cognizance by the Magistrate on the basis of report submitted by the Police after due investigation pertaining to non-cognizable offence is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. Learned High Court Government pleader has contended that the Police have filed requisition before the jurisdictional Magistrate and obtained permission to investigate the offence under Section 133 of RP Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said permission obtained by the Police and granted by the judicial Magistrate is not in accordance with the Guidelines laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) v. State of Karnataka reported in 2020(2) AK 177. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after elaborately considering Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 has issued Guidelines to be followed by judicial Magistrate. The said guidelines are as under: a. 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. b. When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 shall be other than informant or the complainant. 10. In the case on hand, the Police gave requisition seeking permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence and on the very said requisition, the judicial Magistrate has endorsed as “permitted”. The learned Magistrate has not followed Guideline No.(b) of the aforesaid Guidelines. Upon looking to the said endorsement, there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate. 11. In the circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the following order: 4. In the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench concerning accused nos.4 and 6, the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1626/2011, pending on the file of Prl. JMFC, Gokak, stand quashed against the petitioners/accused nos.3 and 7. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1626/2011, pending on the file of the Prl. JMFC, Gokak, stands quashed against the petitioner.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2501 CRL.P No. 102358 of 2024 3. Therefore, the reason so rendered to quash the proceedings against other accused would ennure to the benefit of the petitioners. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1626/2011 pending on the file of the Prl.JMFC, Gokak stands quashed against the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71