- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9340 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MR. MAHAMMAD MUSTHAFA ALIYAS MUNNA S/O A P BAVA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KAKAKEPADAVU HOUSE, ULI VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574211 2. MR. HYDER S/O ISUBU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NERALAKATTE HOUSE, MOODUPADUKODI VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574265 3. MR ABDUL NAWAZ S/O MOHAMMAD AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, KAVALAKATTE HOUSE, KAVALPADOORU VILLAGE, VAGGA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574265 4. MR JOHN MORAS ALIAS JARMI MORAS S/O MORIS MORAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AMINODY HOUSE PANDAVARAKALLU, BADAGAKAJEKARU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 5. MR SHABIR S/O ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SABARABAILU HOUSE, SONANDOOR VILLAGE, PANKAJE POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574236 6. MR. LOKESH S/O VASU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SHAKTHINAGARA HOUSE, KOLPEDABAILU, MALADY VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211 7. MR. FAROOQ S/O ALIKUNHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, MADAVA HOUSE, KAVALAPADOOR VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 8. MR. IBRAHIM S/O ISUBUBYARI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, GOLIYANGADI HOUSE, KUKKEDI VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 9. MR. HAMZA S/O HAMDBAVA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MADVA HOUSE, KAVALAPADURU VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 10. MR. ASHRAF S/O ALIKUNHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, MADVA HOUSE, KAVALAPADURU VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 11. MR. LOKNATH BANGERA, S/O VASU BANGERA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HOSA MANE HOUSE, THENAKAKARJEKARU VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 12. MR. DIVAKARA @ DIVA S/O SANJEEVA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MEGINA PUDU HOUSE, THENKAKAJEKARU VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 13. MR. JAYANTH S/O SANJEEVA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PAIRU HOUSE, THENKAKAJEKARU VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUNJALA KATTE POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNJALA KATTE POLICE STATION, BELTHANGADI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 233 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 & 2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.301/2020 IN CR.NO.28/2020 FOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 THE OFFENCE P/U/S 269, 270 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.87 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT BY PUNJALAKATTE P.S., ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWALA AND ALLOW THIS PETITION. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 13 (Crime No.28/2020 of Punjalakatte Police Station) pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala in CC.No.301/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri. Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Soumya R, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. The FIR in Crime No.28/2020 at Punjalakatte Police Station was came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 13 alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is alleged that, on 19.04.2020 at 18:15 hours the accused were gambling and violating the prohibitory order that was issued in view of Covid-19. Even though, there was restriction on gathering and movement of general public, the accused have gathered at the scene of occurrence and they were gambling. The articles which were used for gambling were seized, and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed. 5. In the first information the Police Inspector of DCIB Dakshina Kannada, specifically stated that he received credible information regarding gathering of the accused, and gambling by violating the restrictions of Covid-19. All 13 accused were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 taken into custody after getting permission from jurisdictional Magistrate. Even while filing the charge sheet the order that was taken by the learned Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C is not produced. Learned HCGP after verifying the order sheet of the relevant date fairly concedes that no such permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate was obtained as required under law. 6. Section 155 of Cr.P.C deals with the information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of the same. Under Sub-section 2 of Section 155 of Cr.P.C, there is a bar to investigate such non-cognizable case without the order of the learned Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. 7. There are catena of decisions where this Court had issued directions to the Investigating Officer to get the permission in writing before proceeding to register the FIR and undertaking investigation. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi V.s The State of Karnataka1 dealt with the practice that is adopted by the 1 AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 2484 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 Investigating Officer registering the FIR without following the procedure as contemplated under law. It has also discussed the practice of the Magistrates to endorse 'permitted' on the requisition submitted by the Police Officer to contend that, the same is the order obtained as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is held that, there must be application of mind by the learned Magistrate when a requisition was submitted or the complainant is produced seeking the order to proceed with the registration of FIR and undertaking investigation. 8. In the present case, even though the first information refers to taking such order from the learned Magistrate and communicating the same through phone, no scrap of paper is produced in that regard. The Investigating Officer has thought of an ingenious idea of referring to the requirement of law while registering the FIR and proceed to investigate into the matter, when infact, the requirements of law was never complied with. 9. The informant being the Police Officer who filed the first information specifically referring that there was an order by the learned Magistrate to register the case and to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 investigate is accountable for the same. It is a serious lapse on the part of these Police Officials to hood-wink the Court by referring to an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C in the first information as well in the FIR without obtaining the same. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the Superintendent of Police Dakshina Kannada to hold an enquiry and if the informant and the Investigating Officer concerned have referred to the order of the learned Magistrate to hold a ride as mentioned in the FIR and prosecute them in accordance with law. 10. Since no prima facie materials are placed before this Court regarding compliance of the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5697 CRL.P No. 9340 of 2022 ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused Nos.1 to 13 (Crime No.28/2020 of Punjalakatte Police Station) pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala in CC.No.301/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is hereby quashed. Learned HCGP is directed to communicate this order to Superintendent of Police Dakshina Kannada, to take necessary auction, in view of the observations made in this order. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV - CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9