- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1059 WP No. 107479 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 107479 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MAHAMAD WASIM S/O BHASHA V., AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: 20TH WARD, MARUTHI NAGAR, TALUKA: KAMPLI, DIST: BALLARI. 2. SANTHOSHA S/O IRAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: 20TH WARD, MARUTHI NAGAR, TALUKA: KAMPLI, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 3. SHRINIVASALU S/O VENKATESHALU, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O: NEAR KUNTERA MASIDI, COWL BAJAR, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 4. UMESHA MV S/O VEERA MALLAPPA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: PATTAKANDAM STREET, NEAR MARRI SWAMY MATHA, KOLMI CITY, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 5. BASAVARAJA N. S/O CHANDRASHEKHARA N., AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: 6TH WARD, HAMPI ROAD, 1ST CROSS, HOSPET TOWN, TALUKA: HOSPETE, DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGAR. 6. IMAAM VALI S/O ALLA BHAKSHA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: 6TH WARD, EMMIGANURU VILLAGE, TALUKA: KAMPLI, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 7. SANNA MANJU S/O GADILINGAPPA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.23 11:47:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1059 WP No. 107479 of 2024 R/O: SRI RAMPURA COLONY, BALLARI CITY, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 8. SANNA IRANNA S/O TAYAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: NEAR 17TH WARD, BUS STAND, TALUKA: KAMPLI, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 9. MAHAMAD GOUSE S/O BHASHA V., AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: 20TH WARD, MARUTHI NAGAR, TALUKA: KAMPLI, DISTRICT: BALLARI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH KAMPLI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT: BALLARI-580 011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.665/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE (CRIME NO.72/2024 OF KAMPLI POLICE STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 79, 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1059 WP No. 107479 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioners are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The allegation is that, upon receiving credible information regarding gambling activities, the complainant secured panchas and, along with the raiding staff, rushed to the spot. It was discovered that the accused were collecting money from the public for playing matka. During the search and seizure, a sum of ₹5,427/- was recovered from accused No.1. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondent/State. 4. The offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, are non-cognizable offences. As per Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), before conducting a raid in relation to non-cognizable offences, the complainant is required to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulingappa Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi, laid down the following guidelines concerning the investigation of non- cognizable offences: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1059 WP No. 107479 of 2024 20. Therefore, under Rule I, 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. 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1059 WP No. 107479 of 2024 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. The order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) indicates that, upon perusal of the requisition, permission was granted to the Investigating Officer to register the case and investigate the same. However, the order does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., as held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case cited above. 8. The investigation into non-cognizable offences, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet, stands vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 9. Furthermore, apart from the recovery of a certain amount of money from the accused, along with a pen, chits, and one printer, there is no substantial evidence to establish that the money collected by the accused was from the public for playing matka. 10. In the absence of substantive evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1059 WP No. 107479 of 2024 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.665/2024 (arises out of Crime No.72/2024 of Kampli Police Station) on the file of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, insofar as petitioners, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR CT:BCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19