Judgment :- 1. Though this matter is listed for admission today, with consent of the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP., the same is heard finally and disposed of. 2. Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in crime No,42/2008 registered for the offence punishable U/S. 127(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’for short) by M.B. Nagar Police which is now pending in C.C. No.2264/2008 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gulbarga. 3. The PSL, M.B. Nagar Police station, Gulbarga, based on the complaint of one Anil Kumar Garudakar registered as case against the petitioner for the offence punishable U/S. 127 (A) of the Act, wherein the Complainant has alleged that, the petitioner herein was found in possession of election material pertaining to Samawajawadi party in two gunny bags and same was without permission or license. After completion of investigation, the respondent-police has filed charge sheet No.32/2008 against the petitioner, which is now pending for adjudication before the court below in C.C.No.2264/2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the offence alleged is U/S. 127 (A) of the Act is a non-cognizable offence, the maximum punishment prescribed for the said offence is imprisonment for a term of six months or fine of Rs.2000/-or both. Section 2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines, the 'cognizable case' means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. The 'Non-cognizable case' as defined under Section 2(1) of Cr.P.C, means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. Warrant case is defined U/S. 2(x) which means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. 5. The 'Non-cognizable case' as defined under Section 2(1) of Cr.P.C, means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. Warrant case is defined U/S. 2(x) which means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. 5. Referring to the above definition, learned Counsel submitted that, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence punishable U/S. 127-A of the Act being simple imprisonment for a term of six months or fine or both, in view of the same the offence being non cognizable offence, the investigation officer is not empowered to investigate the case without the order of a Magistrate as defined U/S. 155(2) of Cr.P.C, as the said provision prohibits the investigation officer from investigating the case of 'non-cognizable case’ without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Therefore, there is a blanket bar on the power of the police officer to investigate the case relating to the ‘non-cognizable' offences. In the case on hand, the respondent-police, without seeking the order/permission of a Magistrate having power to try such a case, has investigated and has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, the investigation made by the police officer and subsequent charge sheet filed by him is one without jurisdiction and illegal for not obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned magistrate, without considering this important aspect of the matter has taken the cognizance of the offence and has issued summons to the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned magistrate, without considering this important aspect of the matter has taken the cognizance of the offence and has issued summons to the petitioner and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, learned Addl., SPP., submitted that in case the police officer has investigated the matter in respect of 'non-cognizable case', the final report submitted by him could be treated as the complaint before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, if prima facie finds that there is sufficient material to proceed with, can either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit and postpone the issuance of process, in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. She further submitted that, there is no need to quash the proceedings and this Court can direct the Magistrate to invoke the provisions of Section-202 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter take fresh cognizance of the offence in terms of Section-190 of Cr.P.C. 7. In this regard, she relied on the Judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of P. Kunhumuhammed versus State of Kerala reported in 1981 Crl. L.J. 356, and submitted that in a similar circumstances, the Kerala High Court considered the report submitted by the police officer and has observed that: "Section-155(2) of the new code prohibit the investigation by the police officer into a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. A violation of this provision would stamp the investigation with illegality. This defect in the investigation can be obviated and prejudice to the accused avoided by the Magistrate ordering investigation under Section-202 of the Code. The report of a police officer following an investigation contrary to section 155(2) could be treated as a complaint under section 2(d) and Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code if at the commencement of the investigation the police officer is led to believe that the case involved commission of a cognizable offence of if there is doubt about it and investigation establishes only commission of a non--cognizable offence. If at the commencement of the investigation it is apparent that the case involved only commission of a non-cognizable offence, the report followed by investigation cannot be treated as a complaint under section 2 (h) or Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code". 8. If at the commencement of the investigation it is apparent that the case involved only commission of a non-cognizable offence, the report followed by investigation cannot be treated as a complaint under section 2 (h) or Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code". 8. She further submitted that, whenever a report of a police officer relating to a non-cognizable offence is brought to the notice of a Magistrate, he may look into the matter and apply his judicial mind and find out whether "it is a case where investigation has to be ordered under Section-202 of the Code or whether it could be treated as a complaint U/S. 2 (h) and Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code or it a fit case for taking cognizance taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the respective counsel, the question that arises for consideration is: "what is the scope of enquiry by the Magistrate, in case of final report submitted by the police in respect of non-cognizable offence?" In this background, it is necessary to consider as to what constitutes non-cognizable case. 10. To know whether the learned Magistrate would treat the report of the police in case of non cognizable offence as a complaint or he can ordered for re-investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, it is better to look into the definition of non cognizable case. Section 2(1) of Cr.P.C. defines "Non-cognizable case", definition is already extracted above. In case non-cognizable offence, the police officer will not have an authority to arrest without warrant and "Warrant-case" is defined under Section 2(x), which means ‘an offence punishable with the death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years', that means, the police officer gets the authority to arrest the accused or a person only in case if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for more than two years. Admittedly, in this case, the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 127-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and it is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term extending upto six months or fine or both. It cannot come within the purview of cognizable offence or a warrant-case. 11. Section 155 deals with "Information as to the non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases". It cannot come within the purview of cognizable offence or a warrant-case. 11. Section 155 deals with "Information as to the non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases". Section 155(2) which reads as under:- "(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." Reading of the provisions of Section 155(2), it makes clear that, if the police officer has to investigate the matter, he must seek permission from the Magistrate having power to try such case. If such permission is not sought for by the police officer he on his own, cannot investigate the case of non-cognizable offence. 12. Whether the police, which investigates the non-cognizable offence and files his report. Could it be treated as a complaint or whether the Magistrate could still ordered for re-investigation as observed by the Kerala High Court it is necessary to look into the definition of "Complaint", as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:- "means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report'. Definition of the complaint excludes the police report. "Police report" is also defined under Section 2(r), same is as follows :- "means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C," 13. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. deals with "Report of police officer on completion of investigation". Chapter XII deals with "Information to the Police and their powers to investigate", the said chapter starts with Section 154 of Cr.P.C, Section 154 deals with receiving the information in cognizable offence and power to investigate in terms of the provisions of the said Chapter. Once the investigation is completed, the police is required to submit its report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, in as much as every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C, deals with as soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report. Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C, deals with as soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report. This provision makes it clear that on investigation, the police officer without any further delay, he should forward a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence, based on the report. Section 173 of Cr.P.C, deals with "Report of police officer on completion of investigation". However, sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C, is an exception, which confers the power on the police officer to make further investigation even after submission of report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C, 14. Reading of the provisions of Chapter XII of Cr.P.C, it is clear that report submitted by the police officer means, it is only after the completion of investigation. Once the investigation is completed, there is no power conferred on the police officer either to reinvestigate or to do fresh investigation. Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C, only confers power for further investigation and not dehorse to the entire investigation or for fresh investigation. 15. In my opinion, the police report once submitted, the Magistrate either he may take cognizance based on the report or if he feels that the entire report does not makes out any case for the offence alleged, he may refuse to take cognizance and may order for further investigation. 16. Barring this, there is no other provisions, which confers power on the Magistrate to direct the police officer to re-investigate the matter. Re-investigation or fresh investigation means, dehorse investigation already made, such a provision being not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion there is no power vested with the Magistrate to direct reinvestigation. Further the Magistrate treating the report of the police in case of non-cognizable offence as complaint is also impermissible in law. As the complaint defined under Section 2(d) excludes the report of the police. In my opinion there is no power vested with the Magistrate to direct reinvestigation. Further the Magistrate treating the report of the police in case of non-cognizable offence as complaint is also impermissible in law. As the complaint defined under Section 2(d) excludes the report of the police. However, if the police file report, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate may take cognizance or in exercise of its power under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. The definition of complaint having excluded the police report, it can be said that the Magistrate can treat the police report in case of non-cognizable offence as complaint and thereafter invoke the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C, and direct the Police Officer for investigation, is contrary to the procedure. 17. Hence, in my opinion, if complaint is filed before the Police Officer in respect of non-cognizable offence only option open to the police officer is to seek permission of the Magistrate (jurisdictional) to investigate the matter. If the investigation is done without the permission of the Magistrate under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C, then the entire investigation made by the Police Officer would be one without jurisdiction and the report cannot be treated as a Complaint nor the Magistrate can invoke the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C, and direct for fresh investigation. 18. In view of the above discussion the filing of the charge sheet by the police against the petitioner being one without jurisdiction is liable to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings in CCNo.2264/2008 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Gulbarga stands quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the Police Officer, if he so desires or finds necessary to investigate, he may do so in accordance with law. 20. In view of the disposal of the main petition itself on merit, Misc. Crl.No.20326/2009 for stay does not survive for consideration.