Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025CRL.P/100629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.PC petition to quash proceedings for non-cognizable offence under Karnataka Police Act. Non-compliance with Section 155(2) Cr.PC: Magistrate's permission order not on trial court order sheet and not designating investigating officer. Coordinate bench guidelines in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (ILR 2020 Kar 630) applied. Proceedings quashed as abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 99/2020 pending before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, arising out of Crime No. 11/2019 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Ballari, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is quashed as against the petitioner. ¶¶41

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether there was compliance with Section 155(2) Cr.PC for registration of FIR and investigation of a non-cognizable offence under Section 78(3) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 +2 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

The order passed under Section 155(2) Cr.PC is not part of the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

The coordinate bench in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi observed that the order passed under Section 155(2) Cr.PC shall form part of the order sheet and the Magistrate shall specify the rank and designation of the police officer required to investigate the case.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

In the present case, the order passed under Section 155(2) Cr.PC does not indicate or specify the police officer who is required to investigate the case.ratio¶¶39
Allowing the impugned criminal proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of the court.ratio¶¶40
The petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 99/2020 pending before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, arising out of Crime No. 11/2019 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Ballari, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is quashed as against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash proceedings for a non-cognizable offence under Section 78(3) Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the High Court held that non-compliance with Section 155(2) Cr.PC procedure — specifically, the Magistrate's permission order not forming part of the trial court order sheet and not specifying the investigating officer — renders the continuation of proceedings an abuse of process of court. Following the coordinate bench decision in Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (ILR 2020 Kar 630), the petition was allowed and proceedings quashed as against the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11282 CRL.P No. 100629 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100629 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

IMRAN S/O. B. JAMEELSAB, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE, R/O. NEAR YASIN SAB MASQUE, COWL BAZAR, TQ. BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583 101.

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKESH S RAKESH HARIHAR SHARIHAR Location:HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD-580 001, (THROUGH BALLARI CEN CRIME P.S.)

¶16

… RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.99/2020 BY LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BALLARI (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.0011/2019 REGISTERED BALLARI CEN CRIME P.S.) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11282 CRL.P No. 100629 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

PETITION IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶26

Accused no.3 is before this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.99/2020 pending before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, arising out of Crime No.11/2019 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Ballari, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act').

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that there is no compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.PC in the present case. He also submits that the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI VS THE

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2020 KAR 630 , has laid down

¶30

certain guidelines to be followed in the case of non-cognizable

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11282 CRL.P No. 100629 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

offences and the same is also not complied with in the present case. He accordingly prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Learned HCGP has opposed the petition and submits that prior to the registration of FIR, there is compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. She accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

The material on record would go to show that on the basis of the report dated 28.03.2019 submitted by the first informant who is the Police Inspector attached to CEN Crime Police Station, Ballari, FIR in Crime No.11/2019 was registered against Saiyad Arrif and others for the aforesaid offence. Prior to the registration of FIR, a requisition was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate and on the basis of the said requisition, the learned Magistrate having found that the alleged information would form an offence under Section 78 of the Act, which is a non-cognizable offence, has proceeded under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC granting permission to register the FIR and investigate the same. FIR has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Act. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11282 CRL.P No. 100629 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The order passed under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC is not part of the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court in the present case. The coordinate bench of this Court in Vaggeppa's case supra, has observed that the order passed under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC shall form part of the order sheet in which further proceedings is required to be continued by the Trial Court. In the said case, it is also observed that the learned Magistrate while passing the order under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC shall specify the rank and designation of the police officer who is required to investigate the case. In the present case, the order passed under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC does not indicate or specify the police officer who is required to investigate the case.

¶40

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed to continue, the same would amount to abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, the following order:

¶41

Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.99/2020 pending before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, arising out of Crime No.11/2019 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Ballari, for the offence punishable

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11282 CRL.P No. 100629 of 2024

¶43

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is quashed as against the petitioner.

¶46

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶47

KK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 8

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahiboob Vs the State of Karnataka

Newton Manilal Parmar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mubeen Akhter Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka