Allowed¶83

Leo Carnalio v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2025CRL.P/8972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; non-cognizable offence; investigation without Magistrate's permission; Section 155(1) and (2) Cr.P.C.; Section 78(i)(iii) Karnataka Police Act, 1963; Section 112 BNS, 2023; Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice Chapter V Rules 1 and 2; Melwin Vishwas D Souza (Crl.P.No.6643/2021) relied upon; Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (ILR 2020 KAR 630) referred; Udupi Town Police Station; Crime No.27/2025; C.C.No.737/2025; proceedings quashed qua accused No.3; single judge (S.R. Krishna Kumar J); decided 18.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in Crime No.27/2025 (C.C.No.737/2025), registered by respondent-Police and pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Udupi, quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.3. ¶83

Leo Carnalio Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.27/2025 (C.C.No.737/2025) against the petitioner/accused No.3, for offences under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 112 BNS, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the offence being non-cognizable, the requisite permission under Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. was not obtained before proceeding further.

¶24

Court's answer

Since the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is a non-cognizable offence and it is undisputed that the Investigating Officer did not obtain the necessary permission as mandated under Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner/accused No.3 deserve to be quashed, in view of the co-ordinate bench decision in Melwin Vishwas D Souza.

¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (filed under Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.27/2025 (C.C.No.737/2025), pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Udupi, for offences under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, against the petitioner/accused No.3. Held: the offence being non-cognizable and it being undisputed that the Investigating Officer did not obtain the necessary permission under Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., and following the co-ordinate bench decision in Melwin Vishwas D Souza Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Crl.P.No.6643/2021, decided 31.01.2022), the proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.3. Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (ILR 2020 KAR 630) figured in the reproduced excerpt.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8972 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LEO CARNALIO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/OF AMBAGILU, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI – 576 232.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.737/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, UDUPI, REGISTERED BY THE POLICE OF UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.27/2025 ON 20.02.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 78(i)(iii) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 AND SEC.112 OF BNS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in Crime No.27/2025 (C.C.No.737/2025), registered for the offence punishable under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Udupi, against the petitioner/accused No.3, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Act being non cognizable offence, necessary permission under Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C had not been obtained by the jurisdictional Magistrate before proceeding further and in the absence thereof, the trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.

¶25

In support of her contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the case of Melwin Vishwas D Souza Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.¹ which reads as under:

¶30

This petition by petitioner-accused No.3 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No.2829/2019 pending on the file of JMFC-VII Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 78 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, registered in crime No.232/2018 by Ullal Police Station.

¶31

2. The case of the prosecution is that one H.D. Kabbal Raj, CCB Police Sub Inspector, Ullal Police Station, Mangaluru, received a credible information on 06.12.2018 that some persons were playing cricket match betting through laptop at Monthero House, Chembugudde, and on the basis of the information, at 12.00 noon, the complainant along with his staff went to the spot and on seeing the accused persons, he filed a complaint to the Ullal Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered NCR case against unknown three persons and sent requisition to the Magistrate and obtained permission. Thereafter, conducted raid on the premises and arrested accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, the police arrested the petitioner-accused No.3 and produced before the Court. After registering FIR and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has

¶32

1 Crl.P.No.6643/2021 dated 31.01.2022

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

been filed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by filing of the charge sheet against him, has filed the present criminal petition before this Court.

¶37

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, after receiving the information, the informant-CCB Police Sub Inspector filed a complaint to the police, who in turn registered NCR case and sent a requisition to the Magistrate and the Magistrate has endorsed on the requisition giving permission, which is not correct as per the guidelines issued by the learned Single Bench of this Court as well as the Criminal Rules of Practice. The learned Counsel further submits that there is grave violation of the provisions contained in Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, registering FIR and filing charge sheet, without obtaining proper permission, is not sustainable. The learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner was not at all present at the place of incident. The petitioner thereafter filed a bail petition and subsequently, obtained bail and hence, prays for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶38

4. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that the investigation officer received credible information in respect of cricket betting and informed the respondent police, who in turn registered NCR case and sent requisition to the Magistrate. The Magistrate accordingly gave permission and subsequently, FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed. Therefore, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 155 of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Cr.P.C. or the guidelines issued by the learned Single Bench of this Court.

¶43

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it reveals that one Sri. H.D. Kabbal Raj, CCB Sub Inspector of Police, Mangaluru, received credible information on 06.12.2018 that some persons namely, Kiran and Kishore as per the directions of Vikas were playing cricket betting using laptop. After receipt of information, the complainant went to the spot and found the aforesaid accused persons and therefore, he filed a complaint to the respondent police. the respondent police after registering the NCR Case sent a requisition to the Magistrate and the Magistrate issued permission to the Police Inspector and endorsed on the order sheet 'permission is accorded'. Subsequently, the police registered FIR and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized mobile phones and laptop. Accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be released on bail and charge sheet has been filed.

¶44

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI (JANGALAGI) VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KAGWAD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 , wherein this Court in similar cases has elaborately issued guidelines after considering Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, which deals with investigation of non-cognizable cases. This Court in the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

aforesaid judgment, at paragraphs 19 to 21, has held as under:

¶49

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:—

¶50

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

¶51

*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.

¶52

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.”

¶53

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.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

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 noncognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:—

¶65

“Perused materials. Permitted

¶66

Sd/-”

¶67

7. On perusal of the requisition given by the police on 06.12.2018, the Magistrate made an endorsement on the requisition stating that three persons were involved in betting on cricket match at Monthero house in Permannur village and hence, permission was accorded. On bare reading of the permission given by the Magistrate, it does not reveal that FIR required to be registered or investigation in the matter is required to be conducted. Simply, the Magistrate has stated that permission is accorded. After going through the requisition, there is no separate order sheet found for obtaining permission and even the police after obtaining permission, arrested the accused persons, registered a case against the accused for the purpose of taking cognizance. It is well settled that in case of a non cognizable offence, the police after receiving information have to enter or cause to be entered

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate for the propose of getting permission under Section 155 (1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. Then Magistrate should accord permission to register FIR and to conduct investigation in the matter under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶72

8. Perusal of the criminal proceedings and the records, there was no procedure followed by the police officer while registering the FIR and also subsequently while filing of charge sheet against petitioner-accused No.3. Therefore, granting permission by the Magistrate suffers from irregularity and the same requires to be quashed.

¶73

9. Therefore, the criminal the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2829/2019 on the file of JMFC, VII Court, Mangaluru against the present petitioner is hereby quashed.”

¶74

Per contra, learned HCGP does not dispute that the

¶75

offence alleged against the petitioner is non cognizable offence. It is also submitted that necessary permission had not been obtained by the Investigating Officer before proceeding further in the matter.

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27512 CRL.P No. 8972 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶79

undisputed fact that necessary permission had not been obtained by the Investigating Officer as mandated under Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C and judgment of this Court in the case of Melwin Vishwas D Souza as stated supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner/accused No.3 herein deserves to be quashed.

¶80

In the result, I pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶83

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.27/2025 (C.C.No.737/2025), registered by respondent-Police, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Udupi is hereby quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.3.

¶84

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶85

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶86

SMJ

Leo Carnalio v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leo Carnalio v. 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

Nikil Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ayan Kumar Choudhury Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sahil Alias Suhel Alias Chuva Vs State of Karnataka

B M S Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Leo Aged About 59 Years , Vs State of Karnataka

Leo Carnalio Vs State of Karnataka