SRI AKASHA S/O BASAVARAJ HAKKANDI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102723 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI AKASHA S/O. BASAVARAJ HAKKANDI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ALWANDI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI HANUMESH DESAI, ADV. FOR
SRI SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
ALWANDI POLICE STATION, KOPPAL,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.
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 ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4071/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, AS
AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3, IN THE
INTEREST 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:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.3 has filed this petition
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, praying to quash the entire proceedings in
Criminal Case No.4071/2024, registered for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963 (for short, 'Act'), pending on the file of the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal.
2. Heard Sri.Hanumesh Desai, learned counsel for
the petitioner-accused No.3, and Sri.Praveena Y.
Devareddiyavar, High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in
nutshell are as under:
On 02.08.2024, at about 6.45 p.m., the defacto
complainant received credible information that, at
Alwandi-Handral road, in front of KEB Office-2, unknown
persons were writing matka chits and numbers. The
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
defacto complainant after receipt of the information
informed his higher authority and along with his sub-staff
and panchas proceeded to the spot and conducted the raid
at 7.40 p.m. and arrested accused Nos.1 and 2, and
seized a ball pen, OPPO mobile phone, OC chit, and cash
of Rs.4,020/- under Panchanama and thereafter lodged
the complaint. Hence, the Station House Officer registered
a case in Crime No.54/2024 for the offence punishable
under Section 78(3) of the Act. In turn, the Investigating
Officer conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet
against the petitioner.
4. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
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 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 has
contended that the Investigating Officer has followed all
mandatory provisions and that the petitioner is involved in
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
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.
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.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
(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.”
9. 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
investigate the matter and file a final report or charge-
sheet.
10. This Court in the case of VAGGEPPA
GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 , considering non-
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
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.
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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
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
specify the rank and designation of the Police
Officer who has to investigate the case, who
shall be other than informant or the
complainant.”
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
11. 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.
12. In the instant case, while conducting raid, the
permission from the learned Magistrate has not been
taken.
13. Undisputedly, the offence for which the First
information Report has been registered is a non-cognizable
offence. Even prior to obtaining permission as required
under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the raid was conducted by
the first informant along with other Police staff, and certain
articles and cash were also seized and subjected to
panchanama. The said panchanama is part of the charge-
sheet which is filed in the present case. Therefore, it is
apparent that the investigation had commenced in the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17221
CRL.P No. 102723 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020185212026
present case even before registration of the First
Information Report. Under these circumstances, this Court
is of the opinion that the entire proceedings, if allowed to
continue, the same would amount to abuse of process of
law. 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.4071/2024, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act,
1963 (for short, 'Act'), pending on the file of the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, as against
the petitioner/accused No.3 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.: 27