Karnataka High Court
Mr. Narendra Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 16 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8782 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NARENDRA BABU
S/O MR. T.R. RAME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O NO. 310, HBCS,
NEXT TO VICTORIA HAVEN APARTMENTS,
DOMLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
2. MR. YATHISHCHANDRA SHETTY,
S/O K.P. JAYASHEELA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O NO. 107/H, BSR MEGHANA APARTMENT,
202/A, 1ST FLOOR, 17TH 'B' MAIN,
KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 095.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by CHANDANA
BM 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
Court of S.J PARK POLICE STATION,
Karnataka
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEKDAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR. LATHESH KUMAR,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
AMBEKDAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...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 QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.69/2025 REGISTERED WITH
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 S.J.PARK POLICE STATION WHEREIN THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2
RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S.36 OF THE
KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 109 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT AND
SEC.7 AND 21 OF CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT
(COTPA) ACT 2003 (ANNEXURE A AND A1), PENDING BEFORE THE
HONBLE 48th ADDL. CMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU
CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs:-
” a) Quash the FIR baring No.69/2025 registered
with the Respondent No.1 S.J.Park Police Station; wherein
the Petitioners herein are arraigned as Accused NO.1 and 2
respectively for the alleged offence under Section 36 of the
Karnataka Excise Act, 109 of the Karnataka Police Act and
Section 7 and 21 of the Cigarettes and Other Taobacco
Products Act (COTPA) Act 2003 (Annexure-A and A1),
pending before Hon’ble 48th Addl. CMM Court, Nrupatunga
Road, Bangalore City.
b. Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the facts of the present matter.”
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Addl.SPP for the respondents – State and perused the material on
record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st
petitioner is running a Bar and Restaurant under the name and
style “Lovers Night Bar and Restaurant” and on 19.06.2025, a raid
was conducted at the said premises, pursuant to which, the
respondents filed the impugned complaint dated 20.06.2025
registered as FIR in Crime No.69/2025 for offences punishable
under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act, Section 109 of
Karnataka Police Act and Sections 7 and 21 of the COTPA Act,
2003. In this context, it is relevant to state that all the aforesaid
offences being non-cognizable offences, it is incumbent upon the
respondents to obtain necessary permission from the learned
Magistrate as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. / Section
174(2) of BNSS, 2023 and as held by this Court in Vaggeppa
Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR
630; Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka
and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024 and
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sri.L.S.Tejasvi Surya Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors –
Crl.P.No.9961/2021 dated 15.02.2022.
4. In Vaggeppa’s case supra, a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court held as under:
” 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
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025HC-KAR
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’.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025HC-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.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025HC-KAR
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.
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/-”
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
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 M.T.Krishnappa‘s case supra, a co-ordinate Bench of
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)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. The afore-quoted words of the learned Magistrate
can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears
application of mind.
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.”
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. In L.S.Tejasvi Surya’s case supra, a co-ordinate Bench
of Court held as under:
“Learned High Court Government Pleader
accepts notice for the respondents.
2. 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.
3. 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
Annexure-C, Magistrate has endorsed the word
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025HC-KAR
‘permitted’.
4. 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.
5. It is further submitted that though the
offences made out in the FIR were 127(2) and 127A of
the Act and 171F 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.
6. Insofar 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 the
procedure to be followed while granting permission for
investigation. Relevant observation made by the
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025HC-KAR
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 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
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.”
7. Clearly, the requirement that is made out
is that 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
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
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
investigation, he shall record a finding to that effect
permitting the police officer to investigate the non-
cognizable offence.
8. 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 to
examine the informant and the complaint given by him
and then proceed further.
9. 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.
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off
subject to observations made above.”
7. In the instant case, I am of the view that in the absence of
obtaining necessary permission from the learned Magistrate as
required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. / Section 174(2) of BNSS,
2023 and the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments
supra, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Further proceedings arising out of FIR in Crime
No.69/2025 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pending on
the file of 48th Addl.CMM court, Bangalore, for offences punishable
under Sections 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act, Section 109 of
Karnataka Police Act and Sections and 21 of the COTPA Act,
2003 insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26411
CRL.P No. 8782 of 2025
HC-KAR
(iii) The respondents – Police are directed to release / return
the seized Music Player as well as speakers back to the petitioners
forthwith and immediately upon a receipt of a copy of this order.
Hand delivery of this order is permitted.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
[ad_1]
Source link