JUDGMENT:- Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks quashing of charge-sheet and incidental proceedings registered vide STC No. 273/07 pending on file of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Akole. Dist.-Ahmednagar. 3. The applicant is Nazir attached to Civil and Criminal Court at Akole. Dist.Ahmednagar. The complainant/Respondent No.2 Pratapsing Ramsing Pardeshi. is Assistant Superintendent attached to the same Court. He lodged a complaint on 25.1.2007 that in the relevant evening, the applicant and one Peon of the Court intercepted him and inquired why a report was sent to the Court of Sessions, They threatened him not to give evidence in the Departmental Inquiry, rushed towards him and caught hold of him. They allegedly, gave fist blows to him. The Police Station House Officer initially gave him advise to lodge a private complaint. It appears that subsequently, his complaint was registered as N.C. Case No.44/ 2007. His additional statements were recorded on 29.10.2007. He was got medically examined. An abrasion and two minor injuries were found on his person. The Police carried out certain investigation into the complaint. The I.O. subsequently applied to the learned Judicial Magistrate on 11.5.2007, for grant of permission to investigate into the complaint which was of non-cognizable nature. The learned Judicial Magistrate accorded permission on 11.5.2007. It appears that thereafter two statements were recorded and charge-sheet was filed. 4. The question involved in this matter is as to whether investigation carried out without permission U/s. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be validated subsequently and whether such permission would operate retrospectively. 5. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. and learned advocate for Respondent No.2. 6. Mr. S.B. Parnere, learned advocate seeks to rely on "Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others" (2008 AIR SCW 3771: [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1429 (S.C.)]). With due respect, this authority is not relevant for the purpose. The Apex Court in the given case held that it would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable. There cannot be any two opinion that analysing of evidence may not be permissible at the stage of consideration of such application. 7. The provision of Section 155(2) mandates prior permission of concerned Judicial Magistrate before commencement of the investigation. The relevant provision reads as follows: "155(2). There cannot be any two opinion that analysing of evidence may not be permissible at the stage of consideration of such application. 7. The provision of Section 155(2) mandates prior permission of concerned Judicial Magistrate before commencement of the investigation. The relevant provision reads as follows: "155(2). No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial." A plain reading of the above provision would make it manifest that without order of concerned Magistrate, the investigation cannot be started. It cannot be overlooked that the provision commences with Non obstante clause viz. "No police Officer shall investigate". Obviously, the commencement of the investigation itself is prohibited without appropriate order of the concerned Magistrate. Needless to say, whatever investigation was carried out by the I.O. till the date of the permission accorded by the learned Magistrate on 11.5.2007 is invalid and cannot be form part of the charge-sheet. The Investigation Officer recorded two statements thereafter which by themselves cannot be treated as charge-sheet. In this view of the matter, the charge-sheet is quite illegal and improper. The learned advocate for the applicant also seeks to rely on "Sudarshan Manchanda Vs. State of Karnataka" 1979(2) Karnataka Law Journal 449"; "Mall1 Chand and others Vs. State of Maharashtra" 1999 Cri.L.J. 1512". 8. Considering the legal position and the fact situation. I am of the opinion that continuation of the Criminal proceedings against the applicant will tantamount to abuse of the process of Court. Hence, the impugned charge-sheet is quashed. No costs. Application allowed.