GIRIRAJ PADASALI S/O HANUMANTHAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101813 OF 2026
[482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
GIRIRAJ PADASALI S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING OF: GOLGERAPPA COLONY,
KANAKAGIRI, TALUK: KANAKAGIRI,
DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 283.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGANGOUDA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH - 580 011,
(THROUGH KANAKARI POLICE STATION).
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.4414 OF 2025 (ARISING
OUT OF CRIME NO.122 OF 2025 AT KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GANGAVATHI, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT,
1963, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused has filed this petition under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.4414 of
2025, in connection with crime No.122/2025 of Kanakagiri
Police Station, pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangavathi, registered for
the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka
Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'Act').
2. Heard Sri Nagangouda M. Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused, and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 19.07.2025 at about 4:00 p.m., the Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police, Kanakagiri Police Station, received a
credible information that the petitioner was conducting matka
gambling in front of Sahana Garments, near the Stone Pillar,
Kanakagiri Town. Based on the said information, the
complainant along with his sub-staff and panchas proceeded to
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
the spot, conducted a raid, apprehended the petitioner and
seized one matka chit, ball pen and cash of Rs.6,000/-. Hence,
the Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.122 of
2025 for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Act.
In turn, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and
filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner.
4. Taking exception to filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has
contended that the complaint is misconceived and the alleged
offence is a non-cognizable under the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). Therefore, the
Police have no authority to investigate the crime. He further
contended that the Police have not complied with mandatory
requirements of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. When the officer-in-
charge of the 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. Further, Section 155(2) of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
Cr.P.C. mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-
cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having
jurisdiction to try such case or to commit such case for trial.
Whereas in the instant case, there is no iota of evidence to
show that the above said mandatory requirements are complied
with. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner
are liable to be quashed.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State has contended that the Investigating Officer
has followed all mandatory provisions and that the petitioner is
involved in the offence alleged against him. Therefore, the
proceedings cannot be quashed.
7. It is not in dispute that an offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of the Act is a non-cognizable offence. When the
report is received by the Station House Officer of the Police
Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the
Station House Officer has to follow the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
8. Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“ 155. Information as to non-cognisable cases and
investigation of such cases.
(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-cognisable offence, he shall enter
or cause to be entered the substance of the information
in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf, 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. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it is the
duty of the Police Officer to enter the substance of the
information in the prescribed book and to refer the informant to
the Magistrate 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
a non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer does not get
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or
charge-sheet.
9. This Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA
JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA , reported in
ILR 2020 KAR 630 , considering non-compliance of mandatory
provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., has held as
under:
“ 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 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 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.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
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
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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
specify the rank and designation of the Police
Officer who has to investigate the case, who
shall be other than informant or the
complainant.”
10. In view of the mandatory requirements stated in
Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the ratio laid down in the
decision cited supra, the Station House Officer of the Police
Station has no authority unless the jurisdictional Magistrate
permits him for investigation of non-cognizable offence.
11. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has passed
the order on 19.07.2025 permitting the Police Officer to conduct
investigation. Whereas, the Police Inspector of Kanakagiri Police
Station conducted raid on the petitioner-accused and seized the
articles on 19.07.2025 at 4:45 p.m. itself and the First
Information Report was registered on 19.07.2025 at 6:15 p.m.
It shows that before granting permission, the Investigating
Officer completed investigation.
12. Undisputedly, the offence for which the First
information Report has been registered is a non-cognizable
offence. Even prior to obtaining permission from the
jurisdictional magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
Cr.P.C., the raid was conducted by the first informant along
with other Police personnel, and certain articles and cash were
also seized and subjected to panchanama. The said
panchanama is part of the charge-sheet which is filed before
the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, it is evident that the police
had commenced the investigation even before obtaining the
requisite permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. The
subsequent grant of permission would not validate the
investigation already undertaken in violation of the mandatory
requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the investigation
conducted in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions
cannot be sustained and permitting the proceedings to continue
would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the
petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R
i. Criminal petition is allowed .
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17669
CRL.P No. 101813 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020118452026
ii. The entire proceedings in proceedings in Criminal Case
No.4414 of 2025, in connection with crime No.122/2025
of Kanakagiri, Police Station, pending on the file of the I
Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gangavathi, for the offence punishable under Section
78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, as against the
petitioner stand quashed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20