High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the FtR No.13t7t202s dated 23-06-202s on ihe fite of the P.S.Gachibowli l.A. NO:'l OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petrtion,the High court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings including arrest of tha petitioners/ Accused in FIR No. 1377 of 2o25 on the file of Station House officer, Gachibowli Police Station This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the a guments of Sri A SATYASIHI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Mr V.Jithe rder Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and rone appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER i,, 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI C AL PETITIoN No.9493oF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharattla Nagaik Sarak;ha Sanhita, 202i (fot short 'BNSS', 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.1377 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioner/accused. , The petitioner is arrayed as sole accused in Crime No.1377 of 2025 regSstered for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3) of Bharaiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (fot short'BNS', 2023') -

3. I have heard Ms.A.Satyasiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, MrJithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addiuonal Public Prosccutor appcaring for the respondent No.1-State- 4 Briefly stated, tlre relevant facts arc thar Responderrt No' 2 Iodged a complaint before the Gachibowli Police Station against the pctitioner/accused. The complaint alleged that the pctitioner had d 4 been harassing Respondent No. 2 by making repe z ted phone calls and had further threatened to cause his deat r through the performance oF puja @lack magic). Since the offences alleged were nonto gntzab e in nature, the police, in accordance with Section 1.55 of the Cc de of Criminal Procedure, 1913 (Cr.P.C.), submitted a reqrr sition to the jurisdictional Magrsuate seeking permission to irl'estigate. Upon receipt of che requisition dated 21.06.2025, the leaned Magistrate endorsed the order "permitted" on 23.06.2025. Ol the strength o[ this order, the police registered an FIR o3r the sa ne day for the allegcd offences.

5. Learned counsel [or the petitioner contende.j that the FIR is liable to bc quashed prin: pal grounds (a) It is thc infonnant/complainaot, and not the 1r, rlice, who must approach rhe i\{agis rrate to obtain permission for ir vestigarion into non cognizable offences; and (b) Even if pcrnission is to be gtanted, the MagisLate is bound rcr record reasons reflecting judicial application of min,l 1 5 In support of these submissions, reliance was placed on the iudgment of the Kamataka High Court in Vegeppa Garulinga Jangaligi a. State of Kanataka, 2019 SCC Online Kar 2708, and on the judgment of this Court in R@uh Ktnar a. State of Telangana, 2019 SCC Online TS 288. Leamed counsel argued that in Veggeppa Garubnga J*SolW, it was categorically held that the police cannot direcdy seek permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., and that such permission must be sought only by the informant. According t<r him, Sections 155(1) and 155(2) Cr.P.C. should bc read togethcr, and the correct interpretation is that the police are barred from seeking such sanction, with &€ obligation resting exclusivelv upon thc complainant. Learned counsel firrther submitted that, while thc Karnataka High Court has explicidy taken fiis view, there is nrr etlualll' categorical pronouncement tn RQuh Kmar.

6. Lcarned r\dditional Public Prosecutor, while not disputing rhc statutory requirement of iudicial scrutiny, submittcd rhar i[ this Court trnds that the order of the Magistrate dated 23.O6.20b suffcrs from legal intrrniry, an appropriate dkection mav bc issuecl 6 permitting the prosecution to pursue the matter afir sh and directing the Magistrate to pass a reasofled order in accordan( : with law.

7. I have considered the submissions advanccJ and carefirlly examined the record.

8. It is necessarv to set out the starutory frar Lework. Section 155(1) Cr.P.C. provides that where information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police statton regarding a non-cognizable offence, such intbrmarion shall be entered into a prr scribed register, and the informanr "shall be referred to tbe Magiraate., Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. categoricallv sripulates that "no potice oficu ;bal/ inuetigate a non-cogniqable case without the order oJ a Magistrate bauitt power to try such case or commit the case Jbr tia/."

9. The phrasc "reJemd to the Magittrata" in Sectic,r 155(1) caflnot be narrorvly constmed to mean that the comp[r inant alone IS obligated ro obtain the Nfagistrate's permission. Har noniously read with Secrion 155(2), the provision conremplates that he Magistrate,s permission is a condirion precedent for investigatlon into a flon_ cognizable o[fence, but the irudarion o[ such a reqr 3st may validly 7 come either from the police upon receipt of a complaint or direcdy fiom the complainant. A restrictive interpretation requiring only the complainant to seek permission would unduly burden victims, forcing them to navigate both police and iudicial channels for relief. If such had been the ldslative intent, the proper course would have been to mandate a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

10. Judicial interpretation has consistendy affirmed that a police officer, upon receiving a complaint disclosing a non-cognizable of[ence, may seek the Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. (see State of Haryana a. Bhajan Lal, 7992 Supp (1) SCC 335' for the pnnciple that police powers must be exercised subject to judicial oversight in such cases). In the ptesent case, therefore, the police acted wrrhin their powers in forwarding the complaint to the N{agistrate and seeking permission, since the allegations prirna facic disckrscd non-cognizable offences. 'fhat said, the requirement of judicial application of rnind ll. rvhile granring permission under Section 155Q) is mandatory' 'l'he obiect of requiring prior sanction is to enswe that an irnpartral (' .*tr{ 8 judicial authoriry examines the allegations and dete rnines whethet the matter v/arrants investigation. While elaborate ; easoning is not essential, the order must at least reflect that th,: Magistrate has perused the complaint and is satisfied that the a legations merit investigation. A mechanical endorsement such as "perrilitted," without any indication o[ reasoning, amormts to n,t t-application of mind and undermines the very pulpose of iudicial s: utiny envisaged by law (su AnilKtnar a. M.K Ajappa, Q013) l0 SC( , 705, where the Hon'ble . Supreme Court emphasized the necesr;i y of reasoned orders when granting statutorv sanction).

12. In the present case, therefore, the permissior gtanted by the learned Magistrate on 23.06.2025 cannot be sustair:d, as it fails to meet the statutory requirement of recording reasor s , however brief. Accordingly, the irnpugned order granting permiss on is set aside. Nevertheless, the Magistrate is at liberrv to reconsidt r the requisition and gtant permission afrcsh, provided reasons i re recorded ifl support of such an ordcr. \ L :.',1,'*' - - ;*.*t IFI. 9 13. !7ith the above libery reserved to the Magistrate, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, any pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed Pending miscellaneous applications , if any, shdl stand closed Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUWREGISTRAR \ To, //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER

1. The X Additional Mekopolitian Magistrate Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar ,Cyberabad

2. The Station House Officer, Police Stat'ron Gachibowli, Cyberabad 3. One CC to SRl. A SATYASIRI Advocate{OPUCI 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies 0 \ AG/PSL I HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 t ( , I nE iTA 3 27 J N ?[?l I * SI : ORDER CRLP.No.9493 of 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED ! ! I I i I I