ORDER : Respondent having filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 295, 295A and 504 of IPC against the petitioner, cognizance was taken only in respect of the offence punishable under Section 295A and process was issued to the petitioner in C C No.22865/12 by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Assailing the said action and seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the said case this petition was filed. 2. Sri K Diwakara, learned advocate, contended that sanction for prosecution having not been obtained in terms of Section 196 of Cr.P.C., the cognizance taken and process issued, for the offence under Section 295A is illegal. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in 1981 Crl.L.J. 113 and 1990 Crl.L.J. 2511. He submitted that the case being covered by the enunciation of law in the said decisions, the petitioner is entitled to the relief. 3. Sri C S Prasanna Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. The complaint was filed on 22.5.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 295, 295A and 504 of IPC. By an order dated 07.11.2012, cognizance was taken only in respect of the offence punishable under Section 295A and summons was issued. 5. In Manoj Rai and others vs. State of M.P. 1991 (1) SCC 728 prosecution having been initiated for an offence under Section 295A of IPC, in the absence of sanction under Section 196(1) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution was found to be illegal and was quashed. 6. In State of Karnataka and another vs. K Rajashekara and another, reported in 2010(1) Kar.L.J. 47 , the first respondent therein having filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the second respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 153A, 295 and 295A of IPC and the Magistrate having directed the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the Station House Officer, Madivala, this court was approached for relief. Having examined the rival contentions and finding that the cognizance had been taken, without obtaining the sanction contemplated under Section 196(1) Cr.P.C., it was held as follows: “ In the instant case however, the offences alleged are under Sections 153A, 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code – relating to promoting enmity between different groups of people and involving deliberate acts outraging the religious feelings of any class. And as pointed out by the learned Advocate General, Section 196(1) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offences under Section 153A or Section 295A of the IPC without the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. 11. The object of Section 196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent unauthorized persons from intruding in matters of State by instituting prosecution and to secure that such prosecutions, for reasons of policy, shall only be instituted under the authority of Government. Further, the offences are of a serious and exceptional nature and deal with matters relating to public peace and tranquility with which the State Government is concerned. Therefore, provision has been made for obtaining prior sanction of the Government before cognizance is taken of any such offence. It is possible that in a given case the very filing of a prosecution, after tempers have cooled down, may generate fresh heat which could well be avoided by the Government by refusing to accord sanction. There is hence an underlying policy which is evident on a reading of the offences enumerated in Section 196(1) in respect of which prior sanction is a must before cognizance of such offence can be taken. Further, under subsection (3) of Section 196, it is laid down that before sanction is accorded, the State Government may order a preliminary investigation by a police officer. This is apparently to decide on the course to be adopted by the State Government in respect of any particular incident and is therefore a crucial step, which cannot be bypassed. Therefore, in my view having regard to the nature of offences alleged, prior sanction of the State Government was a must before the Magistrate could even direct an investigation by the jurisdictional police. It is this feature which would distinguish the present case as an exception to the general rule. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, in my view having regard to the nature of offences alleged, prior sanction of the State Government was a must before the Magistrate could even direct an investigation by the jurisdictional police. It is this feature which would distinguish the present case as an exception to the general rule. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Court of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in PCR 18433 of 2007 are hereby quashed.” 7. Learned advocate for the respondent did not contend that sanction of the Government was obtained under Section 196(1) of Cr.P.C. before instituting the complaint in question or before the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Sub Section (1) of Section 196 Cr.P.C. makes clear, that no court shall take cognizance of (a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Section 153A, 295A or sub section (1) of Section 505 of IPC except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. 8. In the instant case, learned Magistrate, in ignorance of the said mandatory provision has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the petitioner. The impugned action being illegal and the proceedings being abuse of process of the law cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings is quashed.