Karnataka High Court
Anil Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5932 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ANIL SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
C/O KUSHAL SHETTY,
R/AT NO. 816/B, 1 A CROSS,
KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK,
NEAR BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY BY KORAMANGALA
Location: POLICE STATION,
High Court of REPRESENTED BY
Karnataka
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. VARALAKSHMAMMA,
ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER
AND REVENUE OFFICER
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O, NAGESH M,
AT NO 172,
BTM ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
ADUGODI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
IN C.C.NO.14275/2023 (CRIME NO.71/2023 OF KORAMANGALA
POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 171-E,
171-F AND 511 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 39TH
A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
[
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Nishit Kumar Shetty,
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, the learned
SPP appearing for the respondents and have perused the
material on record.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the
following prayer:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and to
quash the entire proceedings initiated against the
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
petitioner in C.C.No.14275/2023 (Crime No.71/2023 of
Koramangala Police Station), for the offences punishable
under Sections 171E, 171F & 511 of IPC, pending on the
file of 39th A.C.M.M., Bangalore, in the interest of justice.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment
rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.1369/2024 C/w
Crl.P.No.2993/2024, disposed on 22.01.2025, wherein it has
held as follows:
“7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2993 of 2024 is the owner of
the premises in which certain materials bearing the sticker of
accused No.2, the petitioner in the companion petition
Crl.P.No.1369 of 2024, who has contested in the legislative
assembly election were found. The offences alleged against
these petitioners while registering the crime was the ones
punishable under Sections 171E, 171F of the IPC and Section
133 of the Act. Since the entire issue has now triggered from
the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice gist of the
complaint. The gist of the complaint as obtaining in column
No.10 of the FIR in Crime No.107 of 2023 reads as follows:
“10. ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï ¯ÉÆÃPÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV E¯ÁSÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
«¨sÁUÀ, PÉ.Cgï ªÀÈvÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ
ºÁdgÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, zÀÆj£À°è w½¹zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ, vÁ£ÀÄ 2023 gÀ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ
ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨Ás PÉëÃvÀæ,
£ÀA-159 gÀ°è J¥sï.J¸ï.n vÀAqÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05/04/2023 gÀAzÀÄ
¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 UÀAmÉ 5 ¤«ÄµÀzÀ ªÉüÉUÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÀAmÉÆæïï gÀÆA
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀzÀ DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï
zÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆAzÀgÀ°è ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ G®èAX¹ 2023 gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ
ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß
¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀiÁ»w §AzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ, vÁ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÀAqÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ºÁUÀÆ
¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¥Éưøï C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV, Dgï.n.£ÀUÀgÀzÀ
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ²æà ®Qëöäà ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ
¤¯AiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ªÁ¸À«®èzÀ £É®ªÀĺÀr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÁ®ß°è 1). ¨ÁèPï §qïð
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¼À¢ §tÚ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 140
PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ; 2) ¦æ«¯ÉÃeï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤Ã° §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 8
PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 3). J£ï-qÀÄgÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉA¥ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¥ÀÄà «Ä²ævÀ §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 5 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 4) AiÀiÁð°¸À£ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¹gÀÄ §tÚzÀ
¨ÁPÀì÷μÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 13 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 5) ²æà CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸ï ªÀÄÆvÀgï
JA.J¯ï.J ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ, gÀªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀavÀæ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ 65 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß
ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPÀì÷μÀÄ ¸ÉÃj, MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ,
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ gÉÆûvï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV, EzÉÃ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨Ás PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ JAJ¯ïJ DVgÀĪÀ
²æà CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV ¸ÀzÀj
PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß 2023 gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨Ás ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ
¸À®ÄªÁV PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj MlÄÖ 231
PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹, ¸ÀzÀj ²æà gÉÆûvï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æ CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð
gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ oÁuÁ J£ï ¹
Dgï £ÀA.88/2023£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå 32
J¹JªÀiïJªÀiï WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÄÀ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
zÁR°¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”
The crux of the complaint was that in the premises of accused
No.1 certain cartons of pressure cookers were found totally
numbering 231 in which sticker of accused No.2 was found.
The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17
reads as follows:
“17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À
F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ 2023£Éà ¸Á°£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀ
«zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðwæPÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ°PÉò£ÀUÀgÀ
«zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæ – 159 zÀÀ°è ¥ÉèöʬÄAUï ¸ÁÌ÷éqï C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ
PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÉèöʬÄAUï ¸ÁÌ÷éqï vÀAqÀzÀ
¸ÀºÀ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.04.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 & ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ
PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀAeÉ 05.05 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gï-
9880143163 gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr, Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ
¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ ¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆAzÀgÀ°è
ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉ G®èAX¹ 2023gÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨Ás ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ
D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ vÉgÀ¼ÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°èzÀÝ ¸ÁQë-1 & ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj
ªÀiÁ»wUÀ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV, Dgï.n £ÀUÀgÀzÀ DvÁä£ÀAzÀ PÁ¯ÉÆä, UÀuÉñÀ
¨ÁèPï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ïgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ²æà ®Qëöä ªÉAPÀmÉñÀégÀ ¤®AiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ªÁ¸À«®èzÀ
£É®ªÀĺÀr ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É zsÁ½ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÁ®ß°è 1). ¨ÁèPï §qïð
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¼À¢ §tÚ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 140
PÀÄPÀÌgïUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2) ¦æ«¯ÉÃeï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤Ã° §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
8 PÀÄPÀÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, 3) J£ï-qÀÄgÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉA¥ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¥ÀÄà «Ä²ævÀ §tÚzÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.5 °Ãl£Àð 5 PÀÄPÀÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, 4) AiÀiÁð°¸À£ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀ¹gÀÄ §tÚzÀ
¨ÁPïìUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 °Ãl£Àð 13 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼ÀÄ, 5) ²æà CRAqÀ ²æäªÁ¸ï ªÀÄÆwð
JA.J¯ï.J ¥ÀÄ®PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ, gÀªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀavÀæ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ MlÄÖ 65 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß
ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ¨ÁPïìUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj, MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹QzÀÄÝ, DUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 & ¸ÁQë-2
gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èzÀÝ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV,
EzÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÀÄ°PÉò £ÀUÀgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨Ás PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ JAJ¯ïJ
DVgÀĪÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀÅzÁV
J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
F jÃwAiÀiÁV ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ C£ÀĸÁgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîzÉà ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀjUÉ D«ÄµÀ MqÀÄتÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV J2
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ 231 PÀÄPÀÌUÀð¼À£ÀÄß
ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ 2023gÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨Ás ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ¤Ãw ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëzÁs gÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ
²PÁëºÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ”
The issue now would be whether the ingredients necessary for
laying down an offence against the accused under Sections
171E and 171F of the IPC or Section 133 of the Act are met or
otherwise. Sections 171E and 171F of the IPC read as follows:
“171-E. Punishment for bribery.–Whoever commits the
offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or
with both:
Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine
only.
Explanation.–“Treating” means that form of bribery where
the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.
171-F. Punishment for undue influence or personation
at an election.–Whoever commits the offence of undue influence
or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both.”
Section 171-E punishes a person who commits bribery during
elections. Bribery is defined under Section 171-B. Section
171-B reads as follows:
“171-B. Bribery.–(1) Whoever–
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
(i) gives a gratification to any person with the
object of inducing him or any other person to
exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any
person for having exercised any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other
person any gratification as a reward for exercising
any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce
any other person to exercise any such right, commits
the offence of bribery:
Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of
public action shall not be an offence under this section.
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or
attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a
gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts
to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a
gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a
motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward
for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have
accepted the gratification as a reward.”
Section 171-B mandates that a person who gives a
gratification with an object of inducing him or any other
person to exercise electoral right in favour of a particular
person commits the offence of bribery. Any person who
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain gratification
would become open to punishment for the said offence. The
other offence alleged is the one punishable under Section
171F. Section 171F must have its ingredients as obtaining
under Section 171C & D of the IPC. Section 171C deals with
undue influence at the elections and Section 171D deals with
personation at elections.
8. A perusal at the contents obtaining in the complaint
does not meet the ingredients necessary to bring home the
offences as alleged. The interpretation of this need not detain
this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court
considering an identical circumstance of influencing voters
during elections, albeit in a different way, in the case of
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
JAGATH PRAKASH NADDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1,
has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
7. The incident that led to registration of crime, is as narrated
hereinabove, and would not require any reiteration, as it is a solitary
incident of speaking in a public gathering. The allegation is
threatening or wooing the voters. A complaint comes to be
registered by the flying squad team of election commission on 09-
05-2023. Since the entire issue has sprung from the complaint, I
deem it appropriate to notice the complaint which reads as follows:
1
2023 SCC OnLine Kar. 1376
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
The complaint is for the offence punishable under Section
171F of the IPC. Section 17 IF reads as follows:
“171.-F. Punishment for undue influence or personation
at an election.–Whoever commits the offence of undue
influence or personation at an election shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
Section 171F punishes those who would commit the offence of
undue influence or personation at an election with
imprisonment, which may extend to a term of one year.
Section 171F requires two ingredients to be present viz.,
undue influence or personation at an election. Undue influence
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
and personation, are defined under Sections 171Cand 171D.
They read as follows:
“171-C. Undue influence at elections.–
(1) Who ever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free
exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue
influence at an election.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section
(1), whoever–
(a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a
candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or
(b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to
believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become
or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual
censure,shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral
right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section
(1).
(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the
mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an
electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the
meaning of this section.
171-D. Personation at elections.–Whoever at an election
applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other person,
whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who having voted
once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper
in his own name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to
procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the
offence of personation at an election:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a
person who has been authorised to vote as proxy for an
elector under any law for the time being in force insofar as he
votes as a proxy for such elector.”
Whoever would voluntarily interfere or attempt to interfere
with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the
offence of undue influence and whoever at an election applies
for a voting paper or votes in the name of other person, living
or dead is said to be guilty of offence of personation in the
elections. What is laid against the petitioner is Section 17 IF of
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
the IPC. If the complaint is considered on the touchstone of
the contents of Sections 171C, 171D and 171F, what would
unmistakably emerge, is a reckless registration of crime and a
loosely laid offence.
8. The complaint nowhere narrates that the petitioner
has unduly interfered with the free exercise of anyone’s
electoral right, nor does it narrates that the petitioner is guilty
of personation as defined under Section 171D of the IPC in the
elections. An incident to become an offence under Section 17
IF, the minimum requirement is narration in the complaint of
the ingredients of undue influence or personation. The
allegation is that Code of Conduct has been violated by the
petitioner, on speaking at a public gathering on 07-05-2023
by threatening the voters. The complaint is so vague that it
would daunt vagueness itself. On such a vague complaint
which is loosely made against the petitioner, the crime in
Crime No. 89 of 2023 is registered and the damocles sword of
crime is left hanging on the petitioner projecting it to be an
offence.
9. If on the aforesaid facts further investigation is
permitted to continue against the petitioner it would become a
classic case of permitting investigation in a reckless
registration of crime which on the face of it, would become an
abuse of the process of law. Reference being made to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS [1992 Supp (1)
SC 335.], in the circumstances would become apposite. The
Apex Court has held as follows:
“… …. ….
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XTV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court lays down 7 postulates of interference at the
stage of registration of crime. Thefirst postulate is that where
the allegations even if they are taken on their face value they
would not make out a case against the accused. The fifth
postulate is that where the allegations in the FIR are so absurd
and inherently improbable, it would be a sufficient ground to
quash the proceedings. The seventh postulate is where a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or
is maliciously instituted with a view to spite the accused, such
proceedings should be quashed.
10. Three of the aforesaid postulates become
completely applicable to the facts of the case at hand.
Therefore, permitting further proceedings would be putting a
premium upon reckless registration of crime against the
petitioner. Thus, this should be nipped in the bud by
entertaining the petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as the complaint itself
nowhere makes out any offence against the petitioner that
would become punishable under Section 171F of the IPC. In
the light of the issue being answered on the merit of the
matter itself, the submission with regard to nonapplication of
mind by the Learned Magistrate while granting permission for
registration of FIR and on that score matter being remitted
back to the Learned Magistrate for re-consideration, would
pale into insignificance. Finding no merit in the complaint, the
petition deserves to succeed.”
If what is found to be necessary ingredients as held in
J.P.NADDA being absent in the case at hand, permitting
further proceedings would become an abuse of the
process of law.
9. The other issue that is projected by the learned
senior counsel is that the informant has not travelled to
the doors of the learned Magistrate seeking permission
for registration of crime in a non-cognizable offence. He
would submit that the provision is clear that it requires
only the informant to go to the jurisdictional Magistrate
seeking permission to register the crime in a non-
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
cognizable offence. The said issue again need not detain
this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This
Court in VIJESH PILLAI supra has considered the entire
spectrum of law and has held as follows:
“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.116 of 2023 by the
K.R.Puram Police Station for offence punishable under Section
506 of the IPC.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent is the complainant and petitioner is
the accused. The 2nd respondent seeks to register a complaint
on 11-03-2023 against the petitioner alleging that the
petitioner has threatened and intimidated the complainant.
The complaint is brought before the K.R.Puram Police Station
upon which the Station House Officer seeks permission of the
X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru to
register a crime under Section 506 of the IPC for criminal
intimidation in the light of the fact that Section 506 of the IPC
is a non-cognizable offence and for a non-cognizable offence
permission of the Magistrate would be imperative under
Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., The learned Magistrate on receipt
of requisition permits the crime to be registered on perusal of
requisition. On the crime being registered, the petitioner has
knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition not
on the issue of merit of the matter but on non-application of
mind on the part of the learned Magistrate granting
permission.
3. Heard Sri Satyanarayana S.Chalke, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend with vehemence that the learned Magistrate
has erred on two counts – one, permission granted on a
requisition made by the Station House Officer is erroneous as
it is the informant who has to go before the learned Magistrate
and seek permission. Sub-section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C.,
permits the learned Magistrate to grant permission. Such
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
grant of permission should be on application of mind. He
would contend that the learned Magistrate has just accorded
permission without any further observation. Therefore, the
proceedings are vitiated.
5. On the other hand, the learned High Court
Government Pleader would seek to support the action of the
learned Magistrate contending that it is not required for the
learned Magistrate to pass an elaborate order while granting
permission to register a FIR and seeks dismissal of the
petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
7. A complaint comes to be registered before the K.R.
Puram Police Station alleging intimidation or threatening the
life of the complainant. The complaint reads as follows:
“Sub: Complainant against Mr.Vijesh Pillai for threatening me to life.
With regard to the above mentioned subject I would like
to bring to you kind attention that a gentleman from kerla
named Vijesh Pillai came to meet me at Zuri Hotel, Bengaluru
initially asking me for an interview and told me he wants to
meet me and discuss above the same. Last Saturday, I went
with family to the hotel I mentioned with my family and these
after 5 minutes of police introduction, he said was sent by the
party secretary, Mr. Govindan to settle the issue between
Hon’ble CM of kerala, his family and as a settlement amount
they will provide 301 crores INR to leave Bengaluru in a
weeks time and go absconding. It I do not agree to the same
then he will have to look for alternative option like charging
false case against me by putting contrabands is my baggage
while traveling or will kill me so that all issues will settle
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
down. They will also do harm to my family member to teach
me a lesson, the has given me week time to think and decide.
I hereby request the authorities to please take necessary
action to protect me and my family from this threat for life as
I have a small son going to school.
I humbly prays to your goodself office to provide me with
protection to body and life.
Kerala police used to provide the same in Kerala when I
was there.”
(Emphasis added)
The complainant when approached K.R.Puram Police Station, a
non-cognizable report is made and a requisition is taken to the
learned Magistrate to register a crime on such non-cognizable
report as the facts would lead to an offence under Section 506
of the IPC. Section 506 of the IPC reads as follows:
“506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.–Whoever
commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.–and if
the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a
woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both.”
Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. The ingredients
of criminal intimidation are found in Section 503 of the IPC.
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to that
person is said to have criminally intimated the victim.
Therefore, the complaint did make out certain ingredients of
Section 503. Since Section 506 is an offence that is non-
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
cognizable, permission of the Magistrate would be required
under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., to register a crime. Section
155 of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
“155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and
investigation of such cases.–(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 may prescribe in this behalf, and
refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable
case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try
such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the
same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to
arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station
may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at
least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable
case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 155 has four parts to it. Sub-section (1) directs that
when information is given to an officer in charge of a police
station of the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he
should enter the substance of the information and refer the
informant to the Magistrate. Therefore, what could be
gathered from the said provision is that on a non-cognizable
offence the informant has to be referred to the learned
Magistrate. Sub-section (2) directs that no investigation on a
non-cognizable offence can take place without the written
order of the Magistrate. Sub-section (4) relates to amalgam
of a cognizable and a non-cognizable offence and if it is an
amalgam the rigour of Section 155(1) and (2) would lose its
significance. The entire issue now revolves around the
aforesaid provisions of law. In the case at hand upon receipt
of the afore-quoted complaint, the Station House Officer
records a non-cognizable report and sends a requisition to the
learned Magistrate seeking to register a crime. The learned
Magistrate passes the following order:
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
“Perused the requisition seeking permission to register
FIR in non-cognizable case. Permitted to register and
investigate in accordance with law.”
(Emphasis added)
Therefore, the order is perused and permitted. Except saying
perused, the requisition and permitted investigation or
registration of FIR, there is no indication of any application of
mind on the part of the learned Magistrate. This Court in
plethora of cases has been emphasizing the fact that
Magistrates should not permit registration of FIR by usage of
words “permitted”, “perused permitted” or even “permitted
registration of FIR”. All these illustrations of granting
permission on the face of it suffers from want of application of
mind. Permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a frolicsome
act on the part of the Magistrate. The Magistrate exercises
power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., In
doing so, it cannot be that he could pass orders which do not
bear a semblance of application of mind. This Court in
VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA2 following all the earlier judgments rendered on
the issue has held as follows:
“3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is
misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable as per the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the Police have no
authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the
Police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155
of Cr. P.C. When the officer-in-charge of the Police Station received
information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he
shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer
and refer the informant to he Magistrate. Further, sub-Section (2) of
Section 155 of Cr. P.C., mandates that no Police Officer shall
investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate
having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The
petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the
above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no
speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the Police
to take up investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against
the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet
are liable to be quashed.
2
ILR 2020 KAR 630
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is non-
cognizable one and therefore, as per Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C., the
informant PSI ought to have been referred to the jurisdictional
Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have passed
the order, permitting the concerned Police to take up investigation of
the case and these are the mandatory requirements of the
provisions under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. which are not
followed in the present case. Therefore, the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be quashed.
8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence
punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non-
cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO of
Police Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable
offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C.
Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section
155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with the procedure for
investigation and for taking cognizance of non-cognizable
offence reads as follows:–
“155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of
such cases.
(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 may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to
the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case
without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or
commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same
powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without
warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a
cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least
one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.”
9. Therefore, when the SHO of the Police Station receives a
report regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and
refer the informant to the Magistrate as required under Section
155(1) of Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required
to pass an order permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case
as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., stated
supra. Unless, the Police Officer is permitted by an order of the
jurisdictional Magistrate 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.
.... .... ....
11. This Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha
Machaiah v. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P. 5934/2009
decided on 20/8/2013 considered the scope of Section 155(1) and
(2) of Cr. P.C., has observed in para 5 as follows:–
“5. Section 155 of Cr. P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in
respect of an information received by the officer in charge of a police station
relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence. According to sub-section
(1) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., when an officer in charge of the Police Station
receives an information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence,
he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the
prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. According to sub-
section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., no police officer shall investigate a
non-cognizable case without a order of a Magistrate having power to try
such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading of sub-section (1) of
Section 155 of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO, who
receives information as to the commission of a non-cognizable offence is
only to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the
prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is for the
informant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek a direction to
the police for investigation. If the Magistrate on being approached by the
informant, directs investigation, the Police Officer concerned would get
jurisdiction to investigate the matter.”
12. This Court in paragraph 6 has further has observed as
follows:–
“In the case on hand, as noticed supra, upon receipt of the report
submitted by the 2nd respondent, the SHO of Virajpet Police Station
registered the same as NCR and submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional
Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter, based on which,
the Magistrate granted permission. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SHO
is without the authority of law and the same is not contemplated under
Section 155 of Cr. P.C. Therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate
on such requisition is also without any basis, as such, the investigation
carried on by the police and the charge sheet filed thereon are without the
authority of law. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner
is liable to be quashed. However, it is open to Respondent No. 2, who is the
informant before the police to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and
seek necessary orders as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr. P.C.”
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
13. Therefore, the SHO of the Police Station has no
authority of law unless the jurisdictional magistrate permits
the Police Officer for investigation of the non-cognizable
offence.
14. This Court in the case of Padubidri Members
Lounge v. Director General and Inspector General of Police in W.P.
Nos. 42073-75/2018 Decided on 3/10/2012, considered the
mandatory provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of CrP.C., where the
charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P.
Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:–
“6. As per the above provisions, when an Officer-in-charge of
the police station receives an information with regard to commission
of non-cognizable offence/s, i) he shall enter or caused to be
entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained
by the said Officer in a prescribed form and ii) refer the informant to
the Magistrate. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P.C.,
mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable
offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such
case or commit such case for trial.
7. In the instant case, police have failed to comply with the
requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. There is
nothing on record to show that the respondents have referred the
informant to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section
155(1) of Cr.P.C., or obtained necessary order as envisaged under
Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., before embarking upon investigation.
Thus, on the face of it, the respondents are seen to have violated the
provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C.”
15. Again this Court, in the case of Veeranagouda and others
vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No. 102021/2018 decided on
11/1/2019, considered the requirements of Section 155(1) and (2)
of Cr. P.C., and has held in para 9 as follows:–
“The Counsel appearing for the petitioner’ also brought to the notice
of this Court that when a requisition was given to the Magistrate, only an
endorsement is made as permitted to investigate as per section 155 of Cr.
P.C. on the very request letter itself and the same is not in accordance with
law. The concerned Magistrate did not apply his mind and passed any
considered order. On the requisition only an endorsement is made and the
same is not the permission in the eye of law. Therefore in reality it is not
permission at all and the prosecution has not satisfied the Court that
mandatory requirements are complied before proceeding with the
investigation in the matter. Legal aspect has not been complied and the
same has been over looked by the Court below while ordering for registering
the criminal case against the petitioners’ herein. Looking to these materials
it goes to show that it is the abuse of process of Court to continue the
proceedings. Not only it is wasting of valuable time and energy of the Court.
Even if the trial is proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the matter.”
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-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 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 an endorsement
cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’.
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
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.
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.
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
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.
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
This has been the law right from 2016 as followed in the
afore-quoted judgment. But, the Magistrates have not
changed their attitude of passing callous orders of granting
permission which sometimes is only a one word order
“permitted”. Therefore, the learned Magistrates by their
callous action of passing of such orders have generated huge
litigation before this Court as petitions are being filed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of such orders
which grant permission bearing no application of mind.
Therefore, the learned Magistrates who pass such orders have
contributed/ contributing to the docket explosion before this
Court. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrates are
contributing to the pendency of such cases in the judiciary
itself. It is high time now, that the learned Magistrates should
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions
received and then pass appropriate orders. Since no orders
are being passed despite repeated orders of this Court of the
kind that this Court has directed. Therefore, I deem it
appropriate to invoke the power under Section 483 of the
Cr.P.C., and direct correction of errors by the learned
Magistrates. Section 483 of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
“483. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous
superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates.–Every
High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of
Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an
expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.”
Section 483 directs that every High Court shall so exercise its
superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates to ensure
that expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such
Magistrates. Section 483 did fall for interpretation before the
Apex Court in plethora of cases. I deem it appropriate to quote
a few. The Apex Court in the case of POPULAR MUTHIAH v.
STATE3 has held as follows:
“24. It is also significant to note that whereas inherent
power of a court or a tribunal is generally recognised, such
power has been recognised under the Code of Criminal
Procedure only in the High Court and not in any other court.
The High Court apart from exercising its revisional or
inherent power indisputably may also exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and in some matters in terms of Section 483 thereof. The
High Court, therefore, has a prominent place in the Code of
Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis the Court of Session which is
also possessed of a revisional power.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the High Court apart from
exercising its revisional or inherent power may also exercise
its supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and in some cases in terms of Section
483 of the Cr.P.C., The Apex Court again in the case of
DHARMESHBHAI VASUDEVBHAI AND OTHERS v. STATE
OF GUJARAT4 has held as follows:
3
(2006) 7 SCC 296
4
(2009) 6 SCC 576
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
“12. The High Court, apart from exercising its
supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 235 of the
Constitution of India, has a duty to exercise continuous
superintendence over the Judicial Magistrates in terms of
Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads as
under:
“483. Duty of High Court to exercise continuous
superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates.–Every High
Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of
Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an
expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.”
13. When an order passed by a Magistrate which was wholly
without jurisdiction was brought to the notice of the High Court, it
could have interfered therewith even suo motu. In Adalat
Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal [(2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] ,
although this aspect of the matter has not been considered but
having regard to the power exercised by the Magistrate under
Chapters 16 and 17 of the Code, it was held: (SCC p. 343, para 14)
“14. But after taking cognizance of the complaint and examining the
complainant and the witnesses if he is satisfied that there is sufficient
ground to proceed with the complaint he can issue process by way of
summons under Section 204 of the Code. Therefore, what is necessary or a
condition precedent for issuing process under Section 204 is the satisfaction
of the Magistrate either by examination of the complainant and the
witnesses or by the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint hence issue the process
under Section 204 of the Code. In none of these stages the Code has
provided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons because
this is only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the accused
would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provision in
the Code. It is true as held by this Court in Mathew case [K.M.
Mathew v. State of Kerala, (1992) 1 SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 88] that
before issuance of summons the Magistrate should be satisfied that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is to
be arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated under
Sections 200 and 202, and the only stage of dismissal of the complaint
arises under Section 203 of the Code at which stage the accused has no role
to play, therefore, the question of the accused on receipt of summons
approaching the court and making an application for dismissal of the
complaint under Section 203 of the Code on a reconsideration of the
material available on record is impermissible because by then Section 203 is
already over and the Magistrate has proceeded further to Section 204
stage.”
Adalat Prasad has been followed by this Court in Everest
Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2007) 5 SCC 54
: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 444] and Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI [(2007) 8 SCC
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
770 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 36] . To the same effect is the decision of
this Court in S. Suresh v. Annappa Reddy [(2004) 13 SCC 424] .
14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly.
Other impugned judgments have been passed by the High Court
relying on the judgment and order passed in SCRLA No. 701 of
2005. It is, however, made clear that we have not entered into the
merits of the matter.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court directs the High Court that apart from
exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 227 and
235 of the Constitution of India it has a duty to exercise
continuous superintendence over judicial Magistrates in terms
of Section 483 of the Cr.P.C. In the light of the provision and
its interpretation by the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to
invoke the said power to direct the learned Magistrates to pass
appropriate orders which should contain the following:
” (i) The learned Magistrates shall record as to who has submitted the
requisition whether it is the informant or the Station House Officer
and make an endorsement of receipt of requisition in a separate
order sheet.
(ii) The learned Magistrates shall not pass any order if the complaint is
not enclosed to the requisition.
(iii) The learned Magistrates shall notice and examine the contents of
the requisition and record a prima facie finding as to whether it is a
fit case to be investigated and if it is not a fit case to be
investigated, the learned Magistrates shall reject the prayer made in
the requisition. To pass this order, the order of the learned
Magistrates shall bear application of mind by not rendering a
detailed order or detailed inquiry at that stage but it shall bear
application of mind.
(iv) The learned Magistrates should forthwith stop using the words
“permitted”, “perused permitted” or “perused requisition permitted
registration of FIR” on the requisition itself and pass separate
orders and maintain a separate order sheet with regard to the grant
of such permission. Granting permission on the requisition would be
contrary to law.
(v) The order of the learned Magistrates shall contain all the aforesaid.
Any deviation thereof from what is directed will be construed that
the Magistrates are contributing to the huge pendency of cases by
their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and would be
viewed seriously.”
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
(Emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid directions/guidelines have become necessary, as
this Court in plethora of cases has quashed orders passed by
learned Magistrates permitting registration of FIRs on the
ground that they bear no application of mind. If a victim would
go before the Station House Officer of a jurisdictional Police
Station and seek to register a crime of being beaten up which
would become an offence punishable under Section 323 of the
IPC or intimidation which would become offence under Section
506 of the IPC or any other non-cognizable offences and as a
matter of fact several offences under the Karnataka Police Act
which the Police themselves seek to register, all go away to
the winds for the sole reason of the learned Magistrates not
applying their minds while granting permission. The victim
who has received blows which will become an offence under
Section 323 or offence under Section 506 of the IPC or any
other non-congnizable offence, will never get justice all
because of the act of the learned Magistrates. Therefore, in a
criminal justice system, the victim cannot be seen to be shown
the doors by judicial acts. Hence, it is high time that the
learned Magistrates, who would grant permission to
investigate, follow the drill that is indicated hereinabove,
failing which justice to a victim would become illusory.
8. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the informant should be sent to the learned
Magistrate seeking permission and not the Station House
Officer would again become unacceptable though not
completely but at least partially. This Court in the case of
ANAND SINGH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in
Crl.P.No.3082 of 2007, disposed on 22.10.2008, has held
that the informant should be referred to the learned
Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission to investigate
the case. This is further followed by another co-ordinate
Bench in PRAVEEN BASAVANNEPPA SHIVALLI v. STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERES5 where this Court has held
as follows:
“11. The Karnataka Police Manual, which does not have
statutory force, but contains the guidelines to the Department
Officers, in Chapter XXVII, Order 1211 relating to non cognizable
cases states as follows:
5
2016 SCC OnLine Kar 4070
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
“1211. (1) When a Police Officer finds it necessary to
lay information before a Magistrate in a non cognizable case,
he may, under Clause (b) of Sub-Section(1) of Section 190 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, make a report to the
Magistrate in writing of the facts which constitute such
offence.
(2) if there are persistent complaints against a
particular individual, which legally fall under the category of a non-
cognizable offence, the following action may be taken-
(a) Obtain orders of the competent court to register the N.C.
case and investigate and/or
(b) initiate action under Section 110 Cr. P.C. if there is
persistent commission of non-cognizable offence by a given
individual resulting in breach of peace.”
12. Concededly, there was no other complaint against the
petitioner and hence, clause 2(b) supra, is not attracted.
13. In the case of Anand Singh v. State of Karnataka, (Crl. P.
No. 3082/2007, decided on 22.10.08), this Court has held, “that
under S. 155 of Cr. P.C., the police officer has no authority to
approach the Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission to
investigate the case.”
14. In Mukkatira Anitha Machaiah v. State of Karnataka, (Crl.
P. No. 5934/2009 decided on 20.08.2013), the 2nd respondent –
informant, having submitted a complaint, SHO registered a case and
submitted a requisition to the Magistrate to accord permission to
investigate the matter. With reference to the said requisition,
permission was granted by the Magistrate. Investigation was made
and the charge-sheet was filed. to quash the charge-sheet and all
related proceedings, a criminal petition under S. 482 Cr. P.C. was
filed. By noticing that the procedure adopted by the SHO is without
authority of law and holding that same is not contemplated
under S. 155 Cr. P.C. and that, therefore, the permission granted by
the Magistrate on such a requisition is also without any basis and as
such the investigation carried and the charge-sheet filed thereon by
the police was held to be without authority of law and the
prosecution launched was quashed.
15. In the case or Dr. Gururaj v. State of Karnataka, (CRL.P.
100046/2014, decided on 22.01.2014), a complaint was filed before
the police alleging abusive words used and life threat given by the
petitioners and about the robbery of some gold ornaments. Police
registered the case for the offences under Ss. 504, 506 and 392 of
IPC and conducted the investigation. It was found that the offences
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of IPC are only made out. A
charge-sheet was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of
the offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of IPC, registered the
criminal case and ordered issue of summons to the accused. The
said action was assailed by filing a petition under S. 482 Cr. P.C. on
the ground that the police are empowered to investigate the offences
but if the police arrive at the conclusion that only non cognizable
offences are made out, then, they can file a report and the
Magistrate has to look into the matter and find out, whether
cognizance can be taken for the non cognizable offences or whether
it requires any further investigation, by referring the matter to the
police to reinvestigate the case under S. 202 of Cr. P.C. Reliance was
placed on the decisions in the cases of (i) Mam Chand v. State, 1999
Crl. L.J. 1592 and (ii) P. Kunhumuhammed v. State of Kerala, 1981
Crl. L.J. 356. Having considered the matter and finding that the
police have submitted charge-sheet for the offences under Ss. 504
and 506 of IPC and the Magistrate without application of mind and
without perusing the charge-sheet papers to ascertain whether the
report submitted by the police has to be treated as a complaint
under S.2(h) of Cr. P.C. or whether under S. 202 Cr. P.C. further
investigation is required, has passed the impugned order, the case
was remitted to the Magistrate and the criminal petition was
disposed of accordingly.
16. In the present case, 2nd respondent having acted
contrary to sub-section(1) of S. 155 Cr. P.C. and the learned
Magistrate having not passed ‘an order’, instead, having
made an entry ‘permitted’, being not ‘an order’ in the eye of
law and in view of the prohibition contained in sub-section(2)
of S. 155 Cr. P.C., the investigation made and the
consequential charge-sheet filed for the offences under Ss.
504, 506 and 323 of IPC and the taking of cognizance of
these offences and the issue of non bailable warrant in the
first instance itself for proceeding further with the case
against the accused are absolutely illegal. It is obvious that
the police and the Magistrate have not bothered to look into
S. 155 Cr. P.C. before proceeding further in the matter. Non
application of mind and mechanical approach to the case are
apparent.
17. The question as to how, in what manner and to what
extent, the inherent power under S. 482 of the Code can be
exercised for quashing the registration of FIR/charge-
sheet/complaint etc. is no more res integra. In State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 535, the propositions of
law has been laid down in para 102. The relevant proposition for this
case is at SI. No. (4) and the same reads as follows:
“(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Statutory safeguard given under S.155(2) Cr. P.C. must
be strictly followed, since the same has been conceived in public
interest and as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious
investigations.
19. In the present case, as is clear from Annexure-J itself,
the alleged offences being non-cognizable, in view of the safeguard
provided under S.155(2) Cr. P.C. the police should have referred the
respondent No. 3 to the Magistrate.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Though the afore-quoted judgments of the co-ordinate
benches of this Court have held that it is the informant who
has to approach the Magistrate and not the Station House
Officer, what is necessary to be noticed is, what this Court
holds in PRAVEEN BASAVANNEPPA SHIVALLI (supra)
referring to the Police Manual which mandates that a Police
Officer finding it necessary to lay information before a
Magistrate in a cognizable offence, may make a report in
writing of such facts which constitute such offence. Therefore,
it becomes necessary to notice the interpretation rendered by
several High Courts of the very provision that has fallen for
consideration in the case at hand.
(i) The Bombay High Court in the case of KEDARNATH
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA6 has held as follows:
“4 . Thus, the grievance in a nutshell is that the police
without the order from the Magistrate investigated into the
offence which is non-cognizable. All that which is required to
be done is to make a report to the Magistrate of having
received a report of Commission of non-cognizable offence.
According to the present non-applicant No. 2, therefore, the action
of the Investigating Officer in seeking permission for investigation
into the offences was absolutely without any grounds and
foundation. According to the non-applicant, as was further urged
before the Court, that in the intervening period, the present
applicant has already filed a private complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class and even examined the witnesses in which
process was issued and in that background, no further investigation
was warranted or permissible. The order was also challenged on
account of being an unreasoned order.
6
2005(4) Mh.LJ 833
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
.... .... ....
14. It is pertinent to note that the Additional Sessions Judge
has not quashed the FIR lodged by Kedamath i.e. the applicant
herein. What would remain is the FIR as a fact without any
investigation, while the applicant’s case for cognizable offence filed
by him will be proceeded as a private case unassisted by the
prosecution by State when the State Police is otherwise well
acquainted and equipped with the investigating machinery. It can
still happen that in the course of investigation of a non-cognizable
offence, the investigating Officer may file a final report under Section
173 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences which may be
cognizable if so found to have been committed. The process of
investigation which is to be commenced, therefore, cannot be
throttled based on grounds such as apprehensions or propriety.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The High Court of Bombay notices that a report has to be
made to the learned Magistrate once the Station House Officer
receives a report of a non-cognizable offence.
(ii) The High Court of Allahabad in BRIJ LAL
BHAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS7 has held as follows:
“5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting:
1. That according to the provisions of Section 155 Cr.P.C. the
information of registering N.C.R. is referred to the magistrate
concerned and no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable
case without the order of the magistrate having power to try such
case or commit the case for trial Therefore, only incharge of the
police station concerned was the competent person to get the
permission from the magistrate concerned for doing the investigation
of a case of non cognizable offence. The first informant was having
no right to move an application under Section 155(2) There is no
illegality in the impugned order dated 17.11.2005 so the same may
not be set aside.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the
learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the report, it appears that in
the present case two important “issues” are involved as;
7
2006 (55) ACC 864
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
(1) whether the officer in charge of the police station
concerned himself is empowered to convert the report of non-
cognizable offence into the report of cognizable offence upon
receiving sufficient material disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence without the order of the magistrate concerned.
(2) Whether for getting, the order to investigate the
non-cognizable case, the first informant has any right to
move an application, before the magistrate concerned under
Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. or it can only be moved by a police
officer of a police station concerned.
…. …. ….
8. Now I deal with issue No. 2. According to the
provision of Section 155 Cr.P.C. only officer in charge or any
police officer of a police station concerned can move an
application to obtain the order for investigation from the
magistrate concerned of a non cognizable case and there is
no legal bar for moving such application by the first
informant, Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. also envisages that no
police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without
the ‘order’ of magistrate, here the word ‘order’ as mentioned
above, it is relevant to deal with issue No. 2, in the wording
of the provision of Section 155(2) the word ‘without order’ is
used. Therefore, the order may be passed by the magistrate
concerned on the application of a police officer concerned or
on the application of the first informant also. According to the
provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. also the case is registered
on the information given to the officer in-charge of a police
station, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. In
default, the first informant may move an application under
Section 156(3) for passing the ‘order’ for doing investigation,
it provides a right to the first informant to move an
application on this analogy the first informant is also a
competent person to move an application under Section
155(2) Cr.P.C.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The High Court of Allahabad frames a specific issue with
regard to getting an order to investigate, is only the right of
the first informant to move the Magistrate or it can be moved
by the Police Officer of a police station concerned. It is
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
answered that it can either be the first informant or the police
officer.
(iii) This is iterated by the Allahabad High Court in the
case of KUNWAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS8
wherein it has held as follows:
“7. From the perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision it is
absolutely clear, without any ambiguity, that no non-cognizable
offence can be investigated by the police without an order passed by
a Magistrate. It is nowhere provided under the said section as
to who will apply for making an investigation under Section
155(2) Cr.P.C. of a non-cognizable offence. The Court cannot
add or subtract anything in the statutory section. The court is
empowered only to interpret the statute as is enacted by the
legislature. The power to amend any statutory provision is the
province of the legislature and not of the courts.
8. In this view of the matter, when we look at Section
155(2) Cr.P.C. we find that there is nothing in the aforesaid
Section as to disentitle the complainant to approach the Court
with the prayer seeking his direction to direct the police to
make an investigation of his N.C.R. Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
does not provide that but for the Police Officer no other
person can approach the Magistrate for seeking his direction
under the aforesaid Section.
9. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion
that the law laid down in 1995 ACC page 254 Naveen Chandra
Panday v. State is not a good law. On the contrary the said
judgment is against the statutory provision. The law laid down by
this Court in 2006 (55) ACC 864 Brij Lal Bhar v. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary, Lucknow and Ors. lays down the correct
proposition of law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
(iv) The Andhra Pradesh High Court in SAJJAL
AGARWAL v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS9 has held as
follows:
“8. In my opinion, there is no illegality or contravention of
Section 155(1) Code of Criminal Procedure by any of the two Station8
2007 (57) ACC 331
9
Criminal Petition No.4442/2009
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
House Officers in these cases. In case a Station House Officer
receives a report containing information of commission of non-
cognizable offence, then, he is bound to refer the
informant/complainant to the Magistrate after entering substance of
the information in general diary maintained in the police station. In
such an event, the Magistrate will follow the procedure prescribed
under Sections 200 – 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. After
recording statement of the complainant and the witnesses present if
any, on oath, it would be open for the magistrate either to dismiss
the complaint under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure if the
Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, or otherwise to issue process under Section 204 Code of
Criminal Procedure to the accused.
9. The police officer is barred from investigating a non-
cognizable case without order of a Magistrate who has power
to try such case or commit such case for trial, in view of
Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure Argument of the
Petitioners’ counsel that the Station House Officer is not
entitled to approach the Magistrate with a petition for
permission under Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure
for investigating a non-cognizable case, has no legal basis.
Sub-section (2) of Section 155 Code of Criminal Procedure
which provides for investigation of a non-cognizable case by
a police officer, is silent as who is competent to invoke the
said provision before the Magistrate. It is open either to a
police officer or to any complainant to approach the
Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 155 and seek
permission of the Magistrate empowering a police officer to
investigate a non-cognizable case. In my opinion, Sub-section
(2) is an exception to Sub-section (1) of Section 155. Not
only a police officer or a complainant can approach the
Magistrate under Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure
but also the Magistrate suo motu can order a police officer to
investigate a non-cognizable case.
10. It is contended by the Petitioners’ counsel that the Courts
below in these two cases granted permission under Section 155(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure without giving any reasons for grant of
such permission. In case a police officer or a complainant
approaches the Magistrate for permission under Section 155(2) Code
of Criminal Procedure, it is not incumbent on the Magistrate to grant
the permission invariably. It is open to the Magistrate either to grant
permission or refuse to grant permission. When there is such
discretion vested in the Magistrate, it is desirable that the Magistrate
should give reasons for empowering a police officer to investigate a
non-cognizable case, so that an aggrieved party will be in a position
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
to question the same in higher Courts and will be in a position to
know for what reasons his application was considered or not
considered. This Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate should
not be casual in granting permission under Section 155(2) Code of
Criminal Procedure simply because a police officer requested for
such permission. The Magistrate has to consider entire gamut of the
case and take into account whether a police officer will be in a
position to collect better material during investigation than the
complainant himself furnishing material in support of his case.
Otherwise there is every possibility of misuse of Section 155(2) Code
of Criminal Procedure in case such power is given to any
unscrupulous police officer misusing his official position and
harassing the named accused persons……..”
(Emphasis supplied)
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh while interpreting sub-
section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. holds that not only
the Police Officer can knock at the doors of the learned
Magistrate, but the informant as well. Therefore the inference
would be, it can either be the first informant or the police
officer who could approach the learned Magistrate.
(v) The High Court of Kerala in ANTO JOSEPH v.
STATE OF KERALA10 has held as follows:
“15. It was held that there was nothing in S. 155 of the Code
which dis-entitles the complainant to approach the Court with the
prayer seeking his direction to direct the police to make an
investigation of his complaint. It was further held that S.155(2)
of the Code does not provide that but for the Police Officer no
other person can approach the Magistrate for seeking his
direction under the aforesaid Section.
16. It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that
the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view
to their place in the overall statutory scheme. It is of course true
that under sub-section (1) of S.155 of the Code mandates that when
the information relates to a non-cognizable offence, the police has to
refer the informant to the Magistrate after recording the substance
of the information. However the section does not say that the order
to investigate should be secured by the informant. The principle of
the maxim “A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum” meaning that there
can be no departure from the express words of law is apposite in this
context. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing any
violence to the language used therein. The Court cannot re-write,
recast or reframe the legislation for the reason that it has no power
10
ILR 2016 (3) Ker.556
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
to legislate.
17. A reading of sub-section (2) will reveal that upon
information given of the commission of a non-cognizable
offence, a police officer can, instead of merely referring the
informant to the Magistrate under S.155(1), report the case
to the Magistrate under S.155(2), who can, under such
circumstances, order such investigation, without first taking
cognizance of the offence under S.190 of the Code. Once a
police officer takes up investigation of a non-cognizable case, after
getting due orders, the investigation which he holds becomes an
investigation under Chapter XII, and he becomes vested with all the
powers bestowed on him under that Chapter including the power to
file a final report. Of course, a private person may also move the
learned Magistrate and secure order but the investigation can only
be carried out by the officer-in-charge of the police station within
whose limits the non-cognizable offence was committed. In view of
the above, the contention vociferously urged by the learned Counsel
cannot be sustained. It is held that no such embargo can be placed
and the orders can be passed by the learned Magistrate on the
motion of the complainant himself or at the instance of the Officer-
in-Charge of the Police Station.
18. However, the learned Magistrate before whom such
information is placed seeking orders under S.155(2) of the
Code will have to make sure that the police officer is not
indiscriminately abusing his powers to commence an
investigation in a non-cognizable case. The learned
Magistrate is bound to form his own conclusion on the basis
of the materials placed before him.”
(Emphasis supplied)
(vi) Again, the Kerala High Court in the case of MANOJ
P.JOHN v. STATE OF KERALA11 has held as follows:
“8. The reading of section 155 Cr.P.C. along with above
decisions, clearly show that a non cognizable offence cannot be
investigated by the police officer without the permission of the
jurisdictional magistrate and also that such permission can be sought
by a private person or the police officer concerned. There is
nothing in the section to indicate that when an informant
approach the police officer, he alone shall seek permission of
the Magistrate to commence investigation. In fact, an
identical contention as now raised by the petitioner herein
was raised in Anto Joseph case ,which was correctly rejected.
11
Crl.MC No.3221 of 2018
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot survive.
9. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had
submitted a detailed complaint enclosing the print out of certain
Facebook posts. However, when the permission was sought, none of
the above materials were placed before the Magistrate. It was
hence, contended that the Magistrate did not have any material
before him for a proper application of mind. It was contended that,
in Anto Joseph‘s case it was held that learned Magistrate before
whom such information is placed seeking order under section 155
(2) will have to make sure that the police officer is not
indiscriminately abusing his powers in commencing an investigation
in a non-cognizable case.
10. It is true that there is nothing to show that either the
complaint or the enclosures were placed before the Magistrate.
However, the crux of the facts constituting the allegation was
referred to in the application submitted by the SHO. Essentially, the
very purport of the section 155 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the power of
the police officer to commence investigation is not indiscriminately
used. In view of that matter, I cannot agree with the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate did not
judiciously apply the mind while according permission to commence
investigation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The High Court of Kerala in the afore-quoted judgments, also
holds that it can either be the first informant or the police
officer who can approach the Magistrate seeking permission to
register an FIR on a non-cognizable offence.
(vii) In PRAKASH RAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA12 a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court holds as follows:
“6.2. Section 155(2) of the Code states that in case a police
officer decides to investigate, he cannot do so without the order of
the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for
trial. That means the police officer has to approach the Magistrate
for an order. Section 156 of the Code deals with power of the police
officer to investigate any cognizable offence. He need not approach
the Magistrate for an order as required in relation to a non-
cognizable offence. To make it more clear, for investigating a non-
12
Criminal Petition No.2394 of 2020
– 39 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026HC-KAR
cognizable offence, what is required is the order of the Magistrate
(permission) and in respect of cognizable offence, the police officer
has got every right to investigate without any kind of order or
permission by the Magistrate. Since section 155(1) states that after
entering the substance of the information in a book, the Station
House Officer may refer the informant to the Magistrate, it is
necessary to elucidate this aspect. And for this purpose section 190
of the Code needs to be referred to.
6.3. Section 190 of the Code deals with taking cognizance of
the offences by the Magistrate. A Magistrate of the First Class and a
Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence under three
circumstances, namely (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts
constituting an offence or offences, i.e., under section 200 of the
Code (b) upon a police report under section 173 of the Code and,
lastly (c) upon information received from any person other than a
police officer or upon his (Magistrate’s) own knowledge about
commission of an offence. Now, if the purpose of referring the
informant to the Magistrate as envisaged under section 155(1) is
analyzed, it can be said that it is for the purpose of enabling the
informant to make a complaint to the Magistrate according to section
200 of the Code if he so desires, and in that event the Magistrate
may take cognizance of the offence according to section 190(a) of
the Code if a case is made out. So it is clear that a person who
reports to the police of an offence which is non-cognizable has every
right to make a complaint according to section 200 of the Code. At
the same time it may also be stated that nothing prevents a
police officer from applying to the Magistrate for an order to
register FIR and proceed further according to section 155(2)
of the Code. This is what is discernible if sections 155 and
190 of the Code are read.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The co-ordinate bench deviates from the earlier principles laid
down by this Court and holds that nothing prevents a Police
Officer from applying to a Magistrate for an order to register
FIR and proceed according to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of
the Cr.P.C.
9. On a coalesce of all the judgments what would
unmistakably emerge is that, it is open to a Police Officer or
any complainant to approach the Magistrate under sub-section
(2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., to investigate a non-
cognizable offence. There is nothing in the section to indicate
– 40 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
that the informant alone should seek permission from the
Magistrate to commence investigation. I deem it appropriate
to concur such plethora of opinions rendered by various High
Courts as what sub-section (1) mandates referring the
informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) remains silent as
to who has to obtain permission. Therefore, permission can
either be sought by the complainant or by the Station House
Officer. Wherefore, it is not necessary for the informant alone
to knock at the doors of the learned Magistrate with a
requisition seeking permission for registration of FIR, it could
be either the informant or the Station House officer. I am in
respectful agreement with the view taken by other High Courts
and the co-ordinate bench of this Court in PRAKASH RAJ
(supra).
10. Coming to the facts of the case at hand, the learned
Magistrate has granted permission as quoted hereinabove. It
is in blatant violation of what is narrated and analysed in the
course of the order. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash
the order granting such permission and resultant registration
of crime and direct the learned Magistrate to pass order afresh
upon the requisition made bearing in mind the observations
made in the course of the order. The order shall contain what
is needed to contain as is observed hereinabove.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order and the Crime registered on the strength of the
order permitting registration stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the learned
Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law
bearing in mind the observations/guidelines laid down in the
course of the order.
(iv) The Registry shall circulate this order to all the Magistrates in
the State for their guidance and its strict compliance.
– 41 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
(v) The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Director General and Inspector General of Police, for
compliance with the guidelines laid down in the course of the
order.”
It is no doubt true that on an earlier occasion in the case of
GOPALAKRISHNA M.N. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA –
Criminal Petition No.55 of 2022 decided on 27th September,
2022 this Court had followed the judgment in the case of
ANAND SINGH supra and had quashed the proceedings on
the ground that the informant is the one who has to travel to
the doors of the learned Magistrate seeking permission. But,
that was only following the judgment in the case of ANAND
SINGH supra. In the subsequent judgment considering the
case of ANAND SINGH, co-ordinate Benches of this Court
had deviated from the said mandatoriness of the informant
himself travelling to the doors of the Magistrate and held that
it can be either the informant or the Station House Officer. In
that light considering the earlier judgment of this Bench in
VIJESH PILLAI supra this Court did hold that either the
informant or the Station House Officer can seek permission of
the learned Magistrate in a non-cognizable offence. Merely
because the informant does not go to the Magistrate to seek
permission it would not vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, the
contention that the informant has not sought permission from
the hands of the learned Magistrate becomes unacceptable.
But, that would not mean that the matter should be remitted
to the hands of the learned Magistrate or the concerned
special Court, in the light of the offence itself not being met in
the case at hand. Therefore, permitting further proceedings,
despite the aforesaid lacunae in the ingredients for the offence
and the procedural aberration, would become an abuse of the
process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed.
(ii) Charge sheet in Crime No.107 of 2023 and
proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2024 pending before
the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as
– 42 –
NC: 2026:KHC:21040
CRL.P No. 5932 of 2026
HC-KAR
well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by Magistrate in the
State of Karnataka) at Bangalore stand quashed.”
4. In the light of the order passed by this Court
(supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.14275/2023 pending
before the 39th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, stand
quashed, qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CBC
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 5
