RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.666 of 2018, dated 23.07.2018, registered by the S.H.O., Miyapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Both the offences are non-cognizable and permission of the Magistrate is a pre-requisite for registration of the crime and investigation from the very wording of Section 155 Cr.P.C. with reference to Section 2 sub-section (l) Cr.P.C. where it defines non-cognizable offence means an offence for which and a non-cognizable case means a case in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.

(2.) Section 155 Cr.P.C. for more clarity reads as follows:

(3.) What mainly provided by sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 155 Cr.P.C. supra is the duty of the police officer, who received information of a non-cognizable offence to enter or cause enter the substance in the book to be kept in the police station (police diary) in the prescribed format and refer the informant to the Magistrate and it is also with a rider saying no police officer shall investigate a noncognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having the power to try to such case or to commit the case for trial. So, the power to investigate is only from the permission of the Magistrate, who got right to take cognizance. Even Section 2(l) Cr.P.C. only bars the arrest and not the investigation or registration of the crime. In fact, registration of crime is different from investigation and what subsection 2 of Section 155 Cr.P.C. supra bars investigation and not registration of a crime. Without going into the controversy, suffice to say from the above legal position, it is a pre-requisite for a police officer to investigate a crime to obtain permission of the concerned judicial Magistrate. The police in the case on hand by filing a memo of the S.H.O., Miyapur, sought permission to investigate into the report of the de facto complainant and to file final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., though used the word as charge sheet. They assigned several reasons including the gist of the report of the de facto complainant Smt. U.K. Rajya Laxmi of House No.402, Prashanthnagar, Miyapur (not Serlingampally as referred in the cause of the 2nd respondent). Needless to say, notice taken to the Miyapur address referred supra twice returned unclaimed and ultimately delivered is a sufficient service to the 2nd respondent in the present impugnment of the so-called permission of the learned Magistrate on the said memo of the police to accord permission to investigate under Section 155(3) Cr.P.C.