Karnataka High Court
Deepak Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.284 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
DEEPAK SHETTY
S/O JAGADISH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 7-8/41, ARASU, 10TH 'B' CROSS,
KODIYAL TARANJGUTTHU,
MANGALORE D.K-575 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY OF URWA POLICE STATION
MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA
REP.BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
Digitally
signed by
MADHURI S THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
Location: PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2034/2023
High Court of
Karnataka REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT-POLICE
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 78(1)(a)(iii) KARNATAKA POLICE ACT,
PENDING BEFORE JMFC-III COURT, MANGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings
in C.C.No.2034/2023 on the file of the JMFC, III Court, Mangaluru,
arising out of Crime No.77/2023 registered by the respondent –
Police for offence punishable under Section 78(1)(a)(iii) of
Karnataka Police Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.77/2023
registered by the respondent – Police, pursuant to the complaint
dated 18.08.2023 filed by the complainant for the aforesaid
offence. In the complaint and FIR, one Gokul Das Shenoy having
been arraigned as accused No.1, approached this Court in
Crl.P.No.2555/2024, which was allowed vide order dated
21.07.2025 and proceedings against accused No.1 were quashed
by this Court as hereunder:-
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026HC-KAR
“In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following
reliefs:
“Quash the entire proceedings in Crime
No.77/2023 registered by Urva Police station in CC
No.2034/2023 pending on the file of JMFC III Court,
Mangaluru, against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(iii) Karnataka
Police Act and grant such other & further reliefs as
this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material
on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that pursuant to Complaint dated 18.08.2023 filed by
respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(iii) of Karnataka Police
Act, 1963 the respondents proceeded to investigate the
alleged offence without seeking prior approval from the
Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., which is
contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the
cases of Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of
Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri.Krishnappa M.T.
and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another –
Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024.
4. In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi’s
case supra, this Court held as under:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026HC-KAR
“16. Therefore, this Court time and again has
quashed the proceedings initiated against the
accused persons in respect of non-cognizable
offence on the ground that the mandatory
provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are
not complied with. However, this Court has not laid
down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates
as to how and in what manner they have to pass
the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a
requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate
seeking permission to investigate the non-
cognizable offence.
17. In the cases referred above, invariably the
Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on
the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police
Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted
to investigate”. This Court has held that making
such an endorsement on the requisition submitted
by the Police is not passing orders and there is no
application of judicious mind in permitting the
Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-
cognizable offence.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt
it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the
benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they
have to approach and pass orders when requisition
is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking
permission to investigate into the non-cognizable
offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026HC-KAR
Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear
that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the
information regarding the commission of non-
cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or
cause to be entered the substance of such
commission in a book maintained by such Officer
and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This
is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C.
Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate,
it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the
requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station
and pass necessary order either permitting the
Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject
the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C.,
specifically provides that no Police Officer shall
investigate the non-cognizable case without the
order of the Magistrate having power to try such
case or commit such case for trial. Therefore,
passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the
Police Officer to investigate the non-cognizable
offence is an important factor. The word without the
order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-Section
(2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that
the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means
supported by reasons. On the other hand, in
number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are
writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition
submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy
the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
an endorsement cannot be equated with the word
‘Order’.
19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal
Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with
investigation of non-cognizable case. The said
provision reads as follows:–
“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
*1. Report under Section 154.–(1) On
receipt of the report of the Police Officer
under Section 154 of the Code, the
Magistrate shall make a note on the report of
the date and time of the receipt thereof and
initial the same. Before initialing, the
Magistrate shall also endorse on the report
whether the same has been received by the
post or muddam.
2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an
investigation of a case under Sections 155(2),
156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in
his order the rank and designation of the
Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom
the investigation shall be conducted.”
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.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
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 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-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of
Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from
PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition
to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission
to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the
K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is
seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has
made an endorsement on the requisition which
reads as follows:–
“Perused materials. Permitted
Sd/-”
22. Therefore, absolutely there is no
application of judicious mind by the Learned
Magistrate before permitting the Police to
investigate the non-cognizable offence much less
an order passed by the Learned Magistrate.
23. Under these circumstances, the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC
No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable
to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are
hereby quashed as against the petitioner is
concerned.
24. Registry is directed to forward the copy of
the order to the Director of Karnataka State Judicial
Academy, Bengaluru, for information and
necessary action.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
25. Registry is also directed to circulate the
copy of the order to all the judicial Magistrates in
the State to follow guidelines laid down in the
order.”
5. In the case of Sri. Krishnappa M.T.’s case
supra, this Court held as under:
‘9. The offences alleged are the ones
punishable under Section 504 and 34 of the IPC.
They are admittedly non cognizable. Therefore, a
non-cognizable report was rendered by the
jurisdictional police, after interaction on 24.08.2020.
The Station House Officer then travels to the Court
of the Magistrate seeking permission for
registration of a crime for offences punishable
under Sections 504 and 34 of the IPC, since the
offences alleged were non-cognizable, the nod of
the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
was imperative. The learned Magistrate passes
the following order:
“The PSI of Turuvekere Police
Station approached with requisition
seeking permission to proceed with the
investigation of non-cognizable case.
It is mentioned that the complainant
lodged the written information about
alleged insult caused by the proposed
accused persons.
As per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.,
there is a bar for the police officer to
proceed with the investigation of the non-
cognizable case without the order of a
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026HC-KAR
Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
case or commit the case for trial.
When, police officer received, the
information about non- cognizable case,
then necessarily seek from permission the
Jurisdictional magistrate to proceed with
the investigation.
By considering the request and
information of the complainant, it is
revealed that the information in a non-
cognizable case is received by the police
officer. In the interest of justice, it is
proper to accord permission to proceed in
accordance with Law.”
The learned Magistrate records that the
Police Officer receives the information about a non-
cognizable offence, then necessarily has to seek
permission from jurisdictional Magistrate, to
proceed with the investigation. This is the
procedure that is narrated in the order. The so
called application of mind by the learned Magistrate
is only in the words “By considering the request
and information of the complainant, it is revealed
that the information in a non-cognizable case is
received by the police officer. In the interest of
justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed
in accordance with Law.”
10. The afore-quoted words of the
learned Magistrate can by no stretch of imagination
be an order, which bears application of mind.
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
11. The learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor seeks to defend this action on the
score that it is a lengthy order and it does bear
application of mind. I decline to accept the said
submission as what is required in law, while the
Magistrate grants permission to register a crime, is
application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in
the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an
order that has even a semblance of application of
mind. It is rather shocking that Magistrates while
granting permission, do not apply their mind and
callously grant permission to register the crime
while passing orders under Section 155(2) of the
Cr.P.C. These acts of passing orders, which bear
no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in
docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time
and again this Court has directed the Magistrates
not to indulge in passing of such orders. The
Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if
it is a frolicsome act.
12. In the case at hand, the afore-quoted
paragraph is the reason. It is in fact an order which
has no reasons. Merely passing lengthy orders,
only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on
application of mind. It is the application of mind
that is necessary in law and not application of ink;
it is not the flow of ink on the paper that is
necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such
application of mind.”
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. In the case of Sri.L.S. Tejasvi Surya Vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors passed in Crl.P.No.9961/2021 dated
15.02.2022, this Court held as under:
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader
accepts notice for the respondents.
3. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the
proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No.51/2019.
Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the
charge sheet dated 02.07.2019 and also for
quashing the entire proceedings arising out of
C.C.No.3077/2020 pending before the II Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
4. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the
information made out by a counsel to the 2nd
respondent on 17.04.2019, the 2nd respondent
filed a complaint before the 1st respondent on the
same day. The allegation made out was that one
Sri. Narayanappa had got printed about 2000
copies of pamphlets on behalf of the petitioner
herein who was the BJP candidate and distributed
the same without mentioning name and address of
the printer and publisher and accordingly,
committed offence under Section 127A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the
Act’) and action was sought for as regards the said
offence. It is submitted that information was then
made out to the Magistrate as per Annexure-C
requesting for permission to commence
investigation. On the basis of written requisition at
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
Annexure-C, Magistrate has endorsed the word
‘permitted’.
5. It is submitted that such endorsement is
not in consonance with the requirement under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and is clearly in violation
of the directions passed by this Court in the case of
Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The
State Of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630.
6. It is further submitted that though the
offences made out in the FIR were 127(2) and
127A of the Act and171F of IPC, the charge sheet
that came to be filed after investigation only made
out offence of Section 127A of the Act. Accordingly,
it is submitted that the proceedings consequent to
the permission given by the Magistrate requires to
be set aside on the sole ground that the order is
not in consonance with the requirements of Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would also contend that even on merits, the
proceedings are liable to be quashed as the
requirement under Section 127A is only as regards
to the person who prints and cannot in any way
lead to proceedings to be carried out as against the
petitioner who was the candidate.
7. In so far as the contention that permission
given by the Magistrate is contrary to the mandate
under Section 155(2) of the Act, the said contention
requires to be accepted. This Court in the judgment
in the case of Vaggeppa (supra) has pointed out
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
the procedure to be followed while granting
permission for investigation. Relevant observation
made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at
paragraph No.20 is extracted hereunder:
“20. Therefore, under Rule I, the
Magistrate shall endorse on the report
whether the same has been received by post
or muddam. Under Rule 2, the 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
Section155(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
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
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 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. Clearly, the requirement that is made
out is that when the requisition is submitted by the
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he
should make an endorsement on it as to how it was
received and direct the office to place it before him
with a separate order sheet. The Court has clarified
that no order should be passed on the requisition
itself and that the entry to be made in that regard is
to be made in the order sheet and the said order
sheet should be continued for further proceedings.
Further direction has been passed at sub-para (iv)
of paragraph No.20 of the judgment extracted
above which also requires the Magistrate to
examine the contents of the requisition and record
a finding as to whether it is a fit case to be
investigated and that if the Magistrate finds that it is
not a fit case to be investigated, he shall reject the
prayer made in the requisition. It is further pointed
out that only after his subjective satisfaction that
there is a ground to permit the police officer to take
up the investigation, he shall record a finding to
that effect permitting the police officer to investigate
the non-cognizable offence.
9. It is also clarified that Annexure-C is a
plea made by the 2nd respondent. In accordance
with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.,
the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate
which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the
police station having made out necessary entry of
the substance of the information in the book kept
as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
to examine the informant and the complaint given
by him and then proceed further.
10. Clearly, the said procedure that has
been laid down in the judgment referred to above
has not been followed in the present case. In light
of the same, the endorsement of the Magistrate
dated 18.04.2019 is set aside and the matter is
relegated to the stage of the informant being
referred to the Magistrate in terms of the procedure
prescribed under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. While it
requires to be noticed that as per the observation in
sub- para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the judgment
extracted above, the Magistrate is required to apply
his mind as to whether permission for investigation
needs to be granted and accordingly, it would not
be appropriate in the present proceedings to
address the other contentions raised by the
petitioner as regards to the proceedings to be bad
in law as ingredients of Section 127A of the Act are
not satisfied. The said aspect, needless to state is
a matter to be considered by the Magistrate before
granting permission by passing an order under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed
off subject to observations made above.”
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the impugned proceedings falling foul of
the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments since
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
the investigation was conducted without the prior
permission of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C., I am of the view that impugned
proceedings deserves to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.2034/2023 arising out of Crime No.77/2023
registered by the respondent – police on the file of the
JMFC III Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable
under Section 78(1)(a)(iii) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963,
insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby
quashed.”
4. In view of the quashment of the impugned proceedings
in C.C.No.2034/2023 qua accused No.1 by invoking / applying the
doctrine of parity, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings
against the petitioner – accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of
process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present
petition.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:13792
CRL.P No. 284 of 2026
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.2034/2023 arising out of Crime No.77/2023
registered by the respondent – police on the file of the
JMFC III Court, Mangaluru, for the offences
punishable under Section 78(1)(a)(iii) of Karnataka
Police Act, 1963, insofar as the petitioner – accused
No.2 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
