UDAY RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
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.102866 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
UDAY RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING OF: DAMANBAIL,
NEAR BETE BEERAPUR KATTE,
SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA - 581 402.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH SIDDAPURA PS, SIRSI SUB-DIVISION,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 331.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE
SHEET FILED BY SIDDAPURA PS IN CRIME NO.146/2026 DATED
20.06.2026 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.556/2026
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDDAPURA FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KP ACT IN
SO FAR AS PETITIONER/A2 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, 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:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
This petition is filed under section 482 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973('CrPC' for short)/528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,('BNSS' for short), 2023 seeking to
quash entire proceedings in CC.No.556/2026 in connection with
Crime No.146/2026 of Siddapura Police Station, pending on the
file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siddapura for the offence
punishable under section 78(3) of The Karnataka Police Act,
1963( 'KP Act', for short).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell is as
under:-
Accused No.1 by name Manjunatha Subba Gouda was found
with some money and chits near Manikya Hotel, Siddapura,
hence the police conducted raid on him and recovered chits,
cash of Rs.1,950/-, one OC chit and a ball pen under the
seizure panchanama and lodged the complaint. The present
petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 on the basis of the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
statement of accused No.1. Taking exception to the same, the
petitioner/ accused No.2 has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complaint is mis-conceived and the alleged offence is non-
cognizable one. The investigating officer has not seized any
articles from the possession of the petitioner and no
panchanama was drawn in the presence of the petitioner.
Further, the police has not complied the mandatory
requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C and the IO has
not informed his higher-ups. It is contended that when the
officer-in-charge of a 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. 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 are complied with in the present case and
there is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate for
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
permitting the police to take up the investigation. Therefore,
the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the charge
sheet are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent State
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.
Hence, learned HCGP prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence under
Section 78(3) 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:-
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 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
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
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.
6. 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 does
not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final
report or the charge sheet.
7. This Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga
Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka reported
in ILR 2020 KAR 630 , considering non-compliance of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
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 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
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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
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."
8. In view of the mandatory requirements stated under
Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the ratio laid down in the
Vaggeppa case referred supra , the SHO of a police station has
no authority unless the jurisdictional Magistrate permits him for
investigation of a non-cognizable offence. But, this Court in
catena of decisions held that the said endorsement on the
requisition submitted by the police officer is not a judicious
order, having applied its mind and there is no application of
judicious mind in permitting the police officer to take up the
investigation for a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the SHO
of a police station if receives a complaint from the PSI, in turn,
the SHO has to submit a requisition to the jurisdictional
Magistrate seeking permission to investigate an offence
punishable under Section 78(a)(vi) of the K.P.Act, which is a
non-cognizable offence.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
9. It is seen that the jurisdictional Magistrate has made
an endorsement stating as 'Permitted'. 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.
10. In the instant case, the name of accused No.2 was
disclosed on statement of accused No.1 and the IO has not
recovered any incriminating article from the possession of the
petitioner and no mahazar has been drawn. Therefore, the
proceedings initiated against petitioner/accused No.2 is
required to be quashed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The criminal petition is allowed .
2. The entire proceedings initiated against the
petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act in C.C.No.556/2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18066
CRL.P No. 102866 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020175322026
in connection with Crime No. 146/2026 of Siddapur Police
Station, pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and
JMFC, Siddapura are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN /CT-SK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41