Police Investigation Into a Non-Cognizable Offence Requires Compliance With Section 155 CrPC.

The petitioner, a manager at an establishment where respondent No. 2 was a co-employee, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 210/2020 for an offence under Section 506 IPC.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant after an exchange concerning a dance video published on Suvarna News Channel.

The police treated the complaint as disclosing a non-cognizable offence and issued an NCR on 3 March 2020, but thereafter investigated and filed a charge sheet.

The Magistrate had permitted investigation; the petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that the procedure under Section 155 CrPC had not been followed.

Whether the police could investigate and file a charge sheet for the alleged non-cognizable offence without complying with the procedure prescribed by Section 155 CrPC.

Whether the proceedings under Section 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the circumstances of the case.

Section 155(1) CrPC requires the police, on receiving information about a non-cognizable offence, to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed register and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

Under Section 155(2) CrPC, the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable case without an order of a competent Magistrate.

The Court also applied the principle that where the law prescribes a procedure, it must be followed in that manner.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where the circumstances warrant its intervention.

The Court found that the complaint disclosed a non-cognizable offence and that the police had issued an NCR, but then proceeded to investigate and file a charge sheet.

It held that the required procedure under Section 155(1) had not been followed.

Although the Magistrate had permitted the investigation, the Court considered that permission to have been granted without taking account of the prior NCR and the complaint’s non-cognizable character; it therefore found the proceedings procedurally defective.

The Court concluded that this defect justified the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 210/2020 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 506 IPC.