- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2623 CRL.P No. 103089 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103089 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. MALLIKARJUNAPPA J AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. GADDANAKERI-587102, TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.BASAVARAJ AND SRI. SUHAS HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH KALADAGI P.S BAGALKOT), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-580011. 2. SHRI. JAGADISH S/O. PARAPPA MULAGUND AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL NON GAZETTED, R/O. AHO HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOT, WARD NO.10, BAGALKOT DIST-587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH COMPLAINT DATED 03.05.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.37/2023 (N.C. NO.10/2023) REGISTERED BY KALADAGI P.S. BAGALKOT AS PER ANNEXURE-B, FILING OF CHARGE SHEET AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DATED 12.01.2024 BY THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 171(E) AND 171(F) OF THE IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.60/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-D PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:51 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2623 CRL.P No. 103089 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 171E and 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No.60/2024, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot. 2. The prosecution alleges that upon receiving credible information that items worth ₹2,00,000 were being transported in a car to influence voters in the Bilagi Assembly Constituency, the car was intercepted, and certain materials were seized under a panchanama. Subsequently, permission was obtained to conduct an investigation under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). 3. The offences alleged are non-cognizable offences. 4. In similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka, made the following observations in paragraphs 19 to 22: 19. Chapter V Rule 1 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, also deals with the investigation of non-cognizable cases. The said provision reads as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2623 CRL.P No. 103089 of 2024 “INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION 1. Report under Section 154.—(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. 2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3), or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.” 20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate must endorse whether the report was received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, the Magistrate must specify in the order the rank and designation of the Police Officer who is to conduct the investigation. Considering the mandatory requirements of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C., along with Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceeded to lay down the following guidelines for the benefit of Judicial Magistrates across the State: i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall not merely endorse “permitted” on the police requisition itself, as such an endorsement does not constitute a valid order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. ii) When the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, he/she must endorse how it was received—either by post or by muddam—and direct the office to place it before the Court with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed directly on the requisition itself. The order sheet should be maintained and continued for further proceedings. iii) The Magistrate must first examine whether the Station House Officer (SHO) has referred the informant to the Magistrate with such requisition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2623 CRL.P No. 103089 of 2024 iv) The Magistrate must scrutinize the contents of the requisition judiciously and record a finding on whether it is a fit case for investigation. If not, the Magistrate shall reject the request. Only after satisfaction that grounds exist for permitting the police officer to investigate shall the Magistrate pass an order accordingly. v) If the Magistrate grants permission for investigation, the order must specify the rank and designation of the investigating officer, who shall not be the informant or complainant. 21. In the case at hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from the PSI on 23.09.2019 and submitted a requisition to the IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate an offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, which is a non-cognizable offence. However, the Jurisdictional Magistrate merely endorsed the requisition as follows: “Perused materials. Permitted. Sd/-” 22. Such an endorsement does not reflect any judicial application of mind and does not amount to a valid order permitting investigation in a non-cognizable case. 5. In the present case, the investigation was conducted before obtaining an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the entire investigation, culminating in the taking of cognizance of the alleged offences, stands vitiated for non-compliance with Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 6. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2623 CRL.P No. 103089 of 2024 ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.60/2024 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused, is hereby quashed. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct::vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6