01Facts
The petitioner, accused No. 2, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 2461/2024 arising from a Hospet Town Police Station case alleging betting activity in a public place, punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(6) and 78(3) of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021.
pp. 2–5Police received information on 4 April 2024, conducted a raid, seized cash and other items, and filed a complaint that night.
pp. 2–5The Magistrate granted permission to investigate on 5 April 2024.
pp. 2–5The petitioner contended that the alleged offence was non-cognizable and that investigation had begun before the Magistrate’s permission.
pp. 2–5, 902Issues
i.1. Whether the police could investigate the alleged non-cognizable offence without first obtaining an order under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
pp. 4–6ii.2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the Magistrate’s permission was granted only after the police had conducted the raid and completed the investigation.
p. 903Law Applied
Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 was treated as creating a non-cognizable offence.
p. 5Under Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., the police must enter the substance of information concerning a non-cognizable offence in the prescribed book, refer the informant to the Magistrate, and obtain the Magistrate’s order before investigating; without that order, the police lack authority to investigate and file a final report.
pp. 5–7Relying on Vaggeppa Guruling Jangali v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630, the Court reiterated that permission must be given by a judicial order following the Magistrate’s consideration of the requisition, and not merely by an endorsement on it.
pp. 7–9Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482Section 155
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
04Reasoning
The alleged offence was non-cognizable, so the procedure under Section 155 applied.
p. 9The chronology showed that the police received information, conducted the raid, and lodged the complaint before the Magistrate granted permission on 5 April 2024.
p. 9The Court therefore concluded that permission came after the investigation had already been undertaken, contrary to the requirement that the Magistrate’s order precede investigation.
p. 9In those circumstances, continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
p. 1005Holding
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 2461/2024, arising from Crime No. 51/2024, insofar as they concerned the petitioner/accused No. 2.
p. 10Any pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as a consequence of the disposal of the petition.
p. 10Original Court PDF
TAYAPPA S/O BASAPPA G.vsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
