- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103064 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI DADAPEER S/O. ISMAIL SAB CHUDIGAR AGE: 40 YEARS OCC. POLITICIAN/BUSINESS RESIDENT OF M.G. ROAD HAVERI TOWN HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KULKARNI ARAVIND DODDABASAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE SUB INSPECTOR HAVERI POLICE STATION HAVERI REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD-580 011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALI PATIL, H.C.G.P.) * * * THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HAVERI IN CC NO.90 OF 2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171C, 171F, 171H OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 123(2) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ALL FURTHER Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8 IS CONCERNED. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.90/2024 pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, Haveri registered by Haveri Town police station, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 20.03.2024 between 11.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., on Haveri-Ranebennur road near KEB Circle, the accused persons were about to start a bike rally without permission. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint to the Haveri Town police station and the police - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 registered the case in Crime No.54/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Heard Sri Arvind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Abhishek Mali Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived and the alleged offences under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC are non cognizable one. Under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the police have no authority to investigate the crime and the police have not complied with mandatory requirements of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. It is contended that when the officer-in-charge of police station receives an information regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to the magistrate. 6. It is contended that as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such case or to commit such case for trial. But there is no iota of evidence to show that the above requirements are complied with in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned HCGP contended that the respondent-State had appointed observers and after having come to know that the accused persons violated the code of conduct of Election Commission, the complaint was registered against the accused persons. He further contended that after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against all 80 persons. Now the petitioner cannot contend that the entire proceedings are illegal and such proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offences under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of Representation of the People Act and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are non-cognizable offences and when the report is received by the SHO of the police station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory requirement of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 155.(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. 9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it is the duty of the police officer to enter the substance of information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the jurisdictional magistrate is required to pass an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 order permitting the police officer to investigate the case as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, unless the police officer is permitted by the Magistrate in an order to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the police officer does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet. 10. This Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630, considering non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., has held as under: "20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should 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. iii) 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. iv) 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. v) 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 shall be other than informant or the complainant." 11. In view of the mandatory requirements stated in Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the ratio laid down in the case stated supra, the SHO of a police station has no authority unless the jurisdictional Magistrate permits him for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. Whereas, in the instant case, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 learned Magistrate has passed an order dated 20.03.2024, which reads as under:- ORDER Acting U/Sec.155 of Cr.P.C. permission is granted to SHO to investigate in NCR No.11/2024 in accordance with law. But, this Court in catena of decisions has held that the said order passed by learned Magistrate based on the requisition submitted by the police officer, is not a judicious order, and there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate in permitting the police officer to take up the investigation for a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the SHO of a police station if received a complaint from the PSI and in turn, the SHO has to submit a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of the Representation of the People Act and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129 and 194D of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are non-cognizable offences. 12. It is seen that the jurisdictional Magistrate has passed an order dated 20.03.2024, wherein, it is stated that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 acting U/Sec.155 of Cr.P.C., permission is granted to SHO to investigate in NCR No.11/2024 in accordance with law. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate before permitting the police officer to investigate a non-cognizable offence, much less, an order passed by the learned Magistrate. 13. It shows that the respondent police had no authority to investigate the matter. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused No.8 by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court passes the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.90/2024 pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, Haveri registered by Haveri Town police station, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171F, 171H of IPC, U/s.123(2) of the Representation of the People Act and U/Ss.128, 194C, 177, 129, 194D of Indian - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12744 CRL.P No. 103064 of 2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are quashed, insofar as petitioner is concerned. iii) Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE MN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 11