JUDGMENT : 1. C.C.No.480 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore is sought to be quashed by the accused, through this Criminal Petition. 2. The petitioner allegedly committed the offences under Sections 355, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) in Crime No.170 of 2008 on the file of the IV Town Police Station (Law & Order), Nellore. The petitioner and the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, are brothers. It would appear that there are misunderstandings between them in respect of the properties of one Hymavathamma who is their paternal aunt. On 06.07.2008 while the second respondent was in a Restaurant, the petitioner went there, hurled abuses and slapped on the face of the second respondent with his chappel. The second respondent, consequently, lodged a complaint. Police registered the same and issued FIR. Subsequently, charge sheet was laid. 3. It is the contention of Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that police has no right to investigate a non-cognizable offence without directions from the concerned Magistrate and that the very investigation is bad, as the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizable offences; but, there is no order from the concerned Magistrate to investigate the case. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent on the other hand contended that the failure of police to obtain prior permission of the Magistrate is a curable defect and that the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. He placed reliance upon In re Pakkirisami (1970 (1) Madras Law Journal Reports 488). The Madras High Court held in that case that a mere defect or illegality in investigation will not per se affect the competence or jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence and that in appropriate cases, the defect can be rectified by ordering reinvestigation. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi ( AIR 1955 SC 196 ) with reference to an offence u/s. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Supreme Court observed that a defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi ( AIR 1955 SC 196 ) with reference to an offence u/s. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Supreme Court observed that a defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance. It may be noticed that the decision is in respect of an offence u/s.5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and not in respect of the general powers of investigation of a police officer. Further, the decision was under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Regarding the general powers, in V. Sudhakar v. R. Rama Mohan Rao ( 2004 (3) L.S. 532 ), police did not obtain permission from the Magistrate to investigate against the accused for the offence under Sections 186 and 506 IPC, both of which are non-cognizable offences. Police took cognizance of the case and investigated into non-cognizable offences without permission of the concerned Magistrate. This Court held that police taking cognizance and investigating a non-cognizable offence without prior permission of the Magistrate concerned is contrary to Sec.155 Cr.P.C. and vitiates the proceedings. This Court, consequently, quashed the proceedings. 6. In Juvvadi Raghu v. the State ( 2006 (3) L.S. 60 ), the accused allegedly committed the offences under Sections 323 and 506 read with Sec.34 IPC. Both the main offences are non-cognizable offences. Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet basing on such investigation. There was no permission from the concerned Magistrate to conduct investigation. This Court held that the proceedings are vitiated as such an investigation is a violation of Sec.155 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the clear mandate of Sec.155 Cr.P.C., police are not entitled to investigate a non-cognizable offence without prior permission of the Magistrate concerned. Admittedly, there was no such permission in this case. I, therefore, consider that the very investigation in this case is bad, as it suffers from illegality. 8. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The charge sheet in C.C.No.480 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore is hereby quashed.