Case at a Glance
Seven accused charged with criminal intimidation and conspiracy, both non-cognizable offences, argued that the investigation was illegal because the police sought the Magistrate’s permission themselves instead of referring the complainant to the Magistrate under Section 155(1) CrPC. The Karnataka High Court rejected the argument, holding that Section 155(2) does not say who must seek permission and that either the informant or the officer may do so, relying on State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, (2013) 11 SC CK 0043. It dismissed the petition and asked the Law Commission of Karnataka to consider rules under Section 174 BNSS.
The complainant had a land dispute with the first petitioner, with a civil suit pending. He alleged that the petitioners, members of a trust, had approached two persons to engage them as contract killers to eliminate him, and that one such conversation had been recorded on a mobile phone. The police registered the complaint as a non-cognizable report on 4 January 2020, and the next day the investigating officer sought the permission of the I ACMM Court, Bengaluru, to investigate. Permission was granted on 6 January 2020.
The police then registered a crime at Halasoor Gate Police Station under Sections 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, investigated and filed a charge sheet. It was undisputed that all the offences were non-cognizable. The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the Magistrate’s permission order gave no reasons and that, under Section 155(1), the officer should have referred the informant to the Magistrate instead of seeking permission himself, relying on Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 07 KAR CK 0118.
The Key Question Before the Court
For a non-cognizable offence, must the police refer the informant to the Magistrate, or can the officer directly seek the Magistrate’s permission to investigate under Section 155(2) CrPC?
Two routes under Section 155, both lawful
Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that Section 155(1) requires the officer to enter the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate, while Section 155(2), which bars investigation without the Magistrate’s order, is silent on who must apply. Following a co-ordinate Bench decision in Writ Petition No. 11186 of 2023, the Court held that either the informant or the Station House Officer may seek permission. It observed that it is “very difficult for a common man or informant” to approach the Magistrate on his own.
Relying on the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, the Court held that referring the informant to the Magistrate “is not the only method available”. Since the investigating officer obtained the Magistrate’s permission before investigating, the procedure was valid, and the Court said: “I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.” Turning to the new code, it noted that the proviso to Section 174 BNSS mirrors Section 155 CrPC but that Karnataka has not framed rules under it, unlike some other States, and directed that the Law Commission of Karnataka be informed. Prakash Raj @ Prakash Rai v. State of Karnataka was also cited before the Court on the effect of procedural irregularity.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 155(2) CrPC does not specify who must seek the Magistrate’s permission; the informant or the police officer may do so.
- Referring the informant to the Magistrate is not the only lawful method (State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde).
- An investigation into non-cognizable offences after the officer obtained the Magistrate’s permission is valid; the quashing petition was dismissed.
- The Registry was directed to send a copy to the Law Commission of Karnataka to consider framing rules under Section 174 BNSS.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It removes a technical ground often raised to quash investigations into non-cognizable offences such as intimidation.
- It recognises the practical difficulty for ordinary complainants in approaching a Magistrate on their own.
- It highlights a gap in Karnataka’s implementation of the BNSS and pushes for rules.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Complainants
- For non-cognizable offences, the police can themselves seek the Magistrate’s permission to investigate.
- You are not necessarily required to approach the Magistrate personally.
- Keep a copy of the non-cognizable report entry and track the permission order.
For Defence Counsel
- A plea that only the informant could seek permission under Section 155 is unlikely to succeed in Karnataka after this ruling.
- Focus on whether permission was in fact obtained before investigation began.
- Watch for any rules framed under Section 174 BNSS that may change the procedure.
Key Takeaways
- Police may directly seek a Magistrate’s permission for non-cognizable offences.
- Referring the informant is not the only route under Section 155.
- Permission must precede investigation.
- Karnataka has yet to frame rules under Section 174 BNSS.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a non-cognizable offence?
An offence for which police cannot investigate without a Magistrate’s order. Here, the charges were under Sections 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, which the Court accepted were all non-cognizable.
Must the complainant go to the Magistrate personally?
Not necessarily. The Karnataka High Court held that either the informant or the police officer may seek the Magistrate’s permission under Section 155(2) CrPC.
Does this apply under the BNSS?
The Court noted that Section 174 BNSS mirrors Section 155 CrPC, and asked the Law Commission of Karnataka to consider framing rules, which the State has not yet done.
Conclusion
Sushil Mondal v. State of Karnataka closes off a technical objection that could otherwise derail investigations into non-cognizable offences, while drawing attention to the need for rules under the new BNSS.
Practical takeaway: In non-cognizable cases, what matters is that the Magistrate’s permission was obtained before investigation began; whether the informant or the officer applied for it does not invalidate the probe.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com