Magistrate Should Record His Satisfaction For Permitting Police To Investigate Non-Cognizable Offences U/S. 155(2) CrPC: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court emphasized that a Magistrate has to record satisfaction for permitting the police to investigate a non-cognizable offense under Section 155(2) CrPC.
The court said the Magistrate cannot merely issue a police intimation without passing any order on the requisition.
The Court held that such a practice is insufficient and emphasized the importance of the Magistrate's compliance with established procedures, including the need for passing an order and the opening of a separate order sheet.
The petitioners in this case had sought the quashing of proceedings in criminal complaint for offenses under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held, “Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the learned Magistrate before permitting the police to investigate non-cognizable offences.”
Advocate Sachin C. Angadi appeared for the Petitioners, Advocate P.N. Hatti appeared for Respondent 1 and Advocate Vidyashankar G. Dalwai appeared for Respondent 2.
According to the petitioner's counsel, the alleged offenses were non-cognizable, requiring the police to seek the Magistrate's permission under Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) for case registration and investigation. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate failed to pass a detailed order as mandated by the court in a previous case, and the proceedings should be quashed due to this violation.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the Police Sub-Inspector followed proper procedure, obtaining permission from the Magistrate before registering the case and conducting the investigation.
The Court noted that the alleged offenses were non-cognizable. Police Sub-Inspector sent a requisition seeking permission and the Magistrate endorsed it with a note indicating receipt on the same day. The Court reproduced the directions issued in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630.
The Court noted that there was no separate order sheet or detailed order from the Magistrate as required by court directions. The Court added, “There is no compliance of direction No.2 by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has not opened separate order sheet for passing an order on said requisition. The learned Magistrate has also not continued the said order sheet for further proceedings in the case, even though the learned Magistrate is aware of directions issued by this Court in the case of the Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs State of Karnataka. The direction No.2 is not complied. Even there is no compliance of direction Nos. 3 and 4 by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate simply issued police intimation without passing any order on the requisition.”
The Court observed that the Magistrate did not comply with the directive to open a separate order sheet and continue proceedings, indicating a lack of application of judicious mind.
Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3.
Cause Title: Rajashekhara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., [2023:KHC-D:13987]
Click here to read/download Order
