SHRI UDAY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (BANAVASI POLICE STATION)

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

1. Heard Sri.Pranav Badagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.661/2025 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and III Additional JMFC Court, Sirsi, for the offence punishable under Sections 78(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short K.P. Act).

3. The prosecution Smt.Chandrakala Pattar, Police inspector of Banavasi has filed a complaint alleging that on 01.03.2025, when she was in Police Station, she received credible information stating that, on the public road at Dasankoppa Sante - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7730 CRL.P No. 102225 of 2025 HC-KAR Market, some persons are playing OC matka. After receiving such information, she secured her sub-staff and panchas and went to the said place, where the petitioner and the other persons were playing OC matka. When the Police Inspector and her staff were waiting, one persons was standing on the road and was inviting the public stating that they will pay Rs.80/- for Rs.1/- and was writing the chits and collecting the money. Therefore, the police inspector and the sub-staff conducted raid at about

14.02 Hrs and secured the accused by name Vijaykumar Narayan Naik from the spot and on being search, the Police Inspector seized one ball pen, one OC paper and cash of Rs.230/-. On further enquiry, he disclosed that he was giving money to accused No.2 by name Sri.Uday shetty. The petitioner is accused No.2 herein. Therefore, SHO of Banavasi Police, registered the case in Crime No.661/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 78(iii) of K.P. Act. After investigation, submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. Taking exception to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7730 CRL.P No. 102225 of 2025 HC-KAR the same, the petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint is misconceived and the alleged offence is a non cognizable one. Under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the police have no authority to investigate the crime and the police have not complied with mandatory requirements of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that when the officer-in-charge of police station receives an information regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to the magistrate.

5. It is further contended that as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, no police officer shall investigate an non- cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or to commit such case for trial. But there is no iota of evidence to show that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7730 CRL.P No. 102225 of 2025 HC-KAR above requirements are complied with in the present case and there is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate for permitting the police to take up the investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

6. Learned HCGP submitted that the jurisdictional Magistrate has permitted the concerned police officer to take up investigation and therefore, compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

7. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence under Section 78(iii) of K P Act is a non-cognizable one and when the report is received by the SHO of the police station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory requirement of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Sections 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7730 CRL.P No. 102225 of 2025 HC-KAR

155.(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police-station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter in a book to be kept as aforesaid the substance of such information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognisable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it is the duty of the police officer to enter the substance of information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the police officer to investigate the case as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, unless the police officer is permitted by the Magistrate in an order to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the police officer - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7730 CRL.P No. 102225 of 2025 HC-KAR does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet.

9. In view of the mandatory requirements stated in Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. it appears that the investigating officer has proceeded with the matter and conducted seizure and also raid on the accused without being order of the magistrate.

10. It is seen that the jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement stating 'Permitted investigate the matter'. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate before permitting the police officer to investigate a non- cognizable offence, much less, an order passed by the learned Magistrate.

11. It shows that the respondent police had no authority investigate the matter. Under circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.2 by the learned magistrate requires - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7730 CRL.P No. 102225 of 2025 HC-KAR to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court passes the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings initiated against petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 78(iii) of the K.P.Act in C.C.No.661/2025 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and III Additional JMFC, Sirsi, in so far as petitioner/accused No.2 is quashed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16