A bare “permitted” endorsement is not a valid Section 155(2) order authorizing investigation.

Police alleged that the petitioner, accused No. 2, was involved in collecting money from the public for “O.C. Matka” gambling.

During a raid, police seized cash, a chit, a pen and pieces of paper; the petitioner’s name was disclosed in accused No. 1’s statement, but no incriminating article was recovered from him and no mahazar was drawn in his presence.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, contending that the offence was non-cognizable and the mandatory procedure for investigation had not been followed.

The Magistrate’s permission to investigate was recorded only as “Permitted” on the police requisition.

1. Whether investigation into the alleged non-cognizable offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act could proceed without compliance with Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s bare endorsement “Permitted” on the police requisition constituted a valid order authorising investigation.

3. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed in light of the defective authorisation and the absence of material recovered from him.

Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act was treated as creating a non-cognizable offence.

Under Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., the police must enter the substance of information about a non-cognizable offence in the prescribed book, refer the informant to the Magistrate, and obtain the Magistrate’s order before investigating.

Relying on Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630, and the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, the Court stated that permission must follow judicial consideration and be recorded in a separate, reasoned order; a mere “permitted” endorsement on the requisition is insufficient.

The Court found that the Magistrate had only endorsed “Permitted” on the police requisition, without a separate order demonstrating application of judicial mind.

Under Sections 155(1) and 155(2), and the guidance in Vaggeppa, that endorsement did not validly authorise investigation of the non-cognizable offence.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s name emerged from accused No. 1’s statement, with no incriminating article recovered from the petitioner and no mahazar drawn.

It therefore held that the proceedings against the petitioner could not be sustained.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.