TAYAPPA S/O BASAPPA G. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101025 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
TAYAPPA S/O. BASAPPA G.,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TAYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR SHANKAR GOUDE HOUSE COWL PET,
HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGAR-583101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR P. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
SRI SRINIVAS NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH HOSPETE TOWN POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT VIJAYANAGAR-580011.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2461/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.78(1)(a)(6), 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2
IS CONCERNED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Vijaykumar P.Hiremath, learned counsel for
Sri.Srinivas Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner-
accused No.2, and Sri. Praveena Y.Devareddiyavar, High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this
petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), seeking
to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case
No.2461/2024 in connection with crime No.51/2024 of
Hospet Town police station, pending on the file of the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Court, Hosapete, registered
for the offence punishable under Section 78(1)(a)(6),
78(3) of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 (for
short, 'Act').
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in
nutshell are as under:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
On 04.04.2024, the defacto complainant received a
coredible information regarding IPL cricket betting
activities being conducted in a public place in front of
Muttyalamma Temple, Hampi, Road, Hosapete town.
Hence, he secured his sub-staff and panchas and visited
the place at 08:45 p.m. and seen the activities of the
present petitioner and others. The petitioner and others
were inviting the public to play betting. The accused
offered the general public to pay a sum of Rs.1,200/-, if
they play in favour of Punjab team and if they play in
favour of the Gujarat team, the accused persons would
pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- for Rs.1000/-. Hence, the defacto
complainant conducted the raid and seized a sum of
Rs.8,500/-, notebook and ball pen under seizure
panchanama and filed the FIR. In turn, the Investigating
Officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge-
sheet against the petitioner.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
4. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner
has preferred this petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently 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 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.
6. It is contended that as per Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C, no police officer shall investigate 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 above requirements
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
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.
7. Learned HCGP submitted that the jurisdictional
Magistrate has permitted the concerned police officer to
take up the investigation and therefore, there is
compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
8. 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.
9. Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as
under:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
“ 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.”
10. 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 jurisdiction to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
investigate the matter and file a final report or charge-
sheet.
11. 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.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
specify the rank and designation of the Police
Officer who has to investigate the case, who
shall be other than informant or the
complainant.”
12. 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.
13. In the instant case, it is seen that the
information received on 04.04.2024 at 08:00 p.m. and the
defacto complainant along with his sub-staff and panchas
visited the spot at 8:45 p.m., conducted raid at 9:00 p.m.
and lodged the complaint on the same at 00.25 a.m. and
the jurisdictional Magistrate granted permission on
05.04.2024. It shows that before granting permission, the
Investigating Officer had completed investigation. Under
these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18032
CRL.P No. 101025 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020086452026
entire proceedings, if allowed to continue, the same would
amount to abuse of process of law.
14. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following
O R D E R
i. Criminal petition is allowed .
ii. The entire proceedings in Criminal Case
No.2461/2024 in connection with crime No.51/2024
of Hospet Town police station, pending on the file of
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Court, Hosapete,
registered for the offence punishable under Section
78(1)(a)(6), 78(3) of the Karnataka Police
(Amendment) Act, 2021, as against the
petitioner/accused No.2 stands quashed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MBS /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29