- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301 CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101166 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHANTESH S/O SANGAPPA ANGADI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. KODIHAL VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ILKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011. 2. KUMAR S/O Y. LAMANI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER, R/O. CPC 1160, ILKAL RURAL P.S., TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 125, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY QUASHING THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO.23/2025 REGISTERED WITH ILKAL RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF K.P. ACT PENDING ON THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301 CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025 AND JMFC COURT, HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, 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 S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused no.1 is before this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.23/2025 registered by Ilkal Rural Police Station, Bagalkot District, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that there is no compliance of Section 174(2) of BNSS, 2023, in the present case. He also submits that the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2020 KAR 630, has laid down certain guidelines to be followed in the case of non- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301 CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025 cognizable offences and the same is also not complied with in the present case. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned HCGP has opposed the petition and submits that prior to the registration of FIR, there is compliance of Section 174(2) of BNSS, 2023. She accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 5. FIR in Crime No.23/2025 is undisputedly registered for the offences punishable under Section 78(3) of Act. The said offence is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, compliance of Section 174(2) of BNSS, 2023, becomes mandatory. This Court in the case of VAGGEPPA (supra) at paragraph No.20 has observed as follows: "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 of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301 CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025 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. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11301 CRL.P No. 101166 of 2025 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". 7. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed to continue, the same would amount to abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, the following order: 8. Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.23/2025 registered by Ilkal Rural Police Station, Bagalkot District, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is quashed as against the petitioner. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK CT:BCK