THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HALAVAGALUVILLAGE POLICE STATION TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 155(2), 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Karnataka Police Act, 1963 s. 78(3)
- Karnataka Police Act s. 78(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.927/2023 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli, arising out of Crime No.43/2023 registered by Halavagilu Police Station, Vijayanagara District, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police…
Judgment
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HALAVAGALUVILLAGE POLICE STATION TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580011. (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS C.C.NO. 927/2023 (HALAVAGALU P.S. CRIME NO. 43/2023) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11292 CRL.P No. 100798 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Accused no.2 is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.927/2023 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli, arising out of Crime No.43/2023 registered by Halavagilu Police Station, Vijayanagara District, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence for which FIR has been registered is a non-cognizable offence. There is no compliance of the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C in the present case. The learned Magistrate has allegedly granted permission on the requisition made by the police seeking permission to investigate the case. The same cannot be considered as compliance of 155(2) of Cr.P.C in view of judgment of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11292 CRL.P No. 100798 of 2024 HC-KAR JANGALIGI (JANGALAGI) V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KAGWAD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI - ILR 2020 KAR 630.
Learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, however, does not dispute the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
FIR in Crime No.43/2023 is undisputedly registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. The said offence is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C becomes mandatory. In the case on hand, it is seen that on the requisition made by the Police before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking his permission to investigate the case, the learned Magistrate has made endorsement granting permission to register and investigate the case. This Court in Vaggeppa’s case (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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11292 CRL.P No. 100798 of 2024 HC-KAR 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. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement '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 continued 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11292 CRL.P No.
100798 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 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".
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is compliance of requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, in the present case. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11292 CRL.P No. 100798 of 2024 HC-KAR
Operative part
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.927/2023 pending before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Harapanahalli, arising out of Crime No.43/2023 registered by Halavagilu Police Station, Vijayanagara District, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to petitioner herein is concerned. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 155(2), 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Karnataka Police Act, 1963 — s. 78(3); Karnataka Police Act — s. 78(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.