ORDER : 1. The petitioner, a Non Resident Indian, married Smt. Savita, daughter of the 3rd respondent, on 25.04.2008. Out of the wedlock, a son – Master Ishaan was born, on 21.11.2011, in the United States of America. The petitioner, his wife and the child came to Bengaluru on 06.02.2013. The petitioner alone returned to USA. Later, when the child was sought to be taken to USA by the petitioner, through his parents, Smt. Savita filed G&W No.5/2013 in the Family Court, Hubli. A memo having been filed that Smt. Savita got custody of the child with the police help, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Smt. Savita filed G & W No.13/2013 in the Family Court, Hubli, seeking declaration that she is the legal and total guardian of Master Ishaan and for issue of directions to the petitioner to handover the passport. An order dismissing I.A. filed for grant of temporary injunction having been passed by the Family Court, MFA No.101490/2014 was filed and an adinterim order was passed. On 14.07.2015, Master Ishaan having not been produced before the Court and a statement having been made that he has been admitted at Thathwadarshini Hospital, Hubli and the petitioner is at liberty to visit the hospital and see the condition of the child, suffering from suspected dengue fever, petitioner went to the hospital. An altercation having taken place between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, a complaint was lodged in the Gokul Road Police Station. The police registered a case in Crime No.92/2015 against the petitioner for the offences under Ss.506, 504 and 323 of IPC. Assailing the FIR submitted to the I Addl. JMFC, Hubli, W.P. No.108985/2015 was filed. Respondent No.2 having completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet vide Annexure – H and a memo having been filed, writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences under Ss.323, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered C.C. No.6507/2015 and issued NBW to the petitioner, arraigned as the accused, vide the order as at Annexure-K, this writ petition was filed to quash the charge-sheet vide Annexure-H and an endorsement of the police vide Annexure-J. 2. Respondent No.3 filed statement of objections. Learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences under Ss.323, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered C.C. No.6507/2015 and issued NBW to the petitioner, arraigned as the accused, vide the order as at Annexure-K, this writ petition was filed to quash the charge-sheet vide Annexure-H and an endorsement of the police vide Annexure-J. 2. Respondent No.3 filed statement of objections. According to him, the petitioner caught hold of his neck, uttered filthy words and committed the assault at the hospital and hence, complaint was lodged before the 2nd respondent, who, having sought the ‘permission’ of the Magistrate and the ‘permission’ having been granted, investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed. 3. Heard Sri F.V. Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner, Sri Praveen K. Uppar, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned advocate for respondent No.3 and perused the record. 4. Upon receipt of the said complaint, police registered N.C. No.2/2015 for the offences under S.323, 504 and 506 of IPC. The offences being non cognizable, ‘permission’ of the Magistrate to undertake the investigation was sought by submitting Annexure-J. The same being relevant, is extracted hereunder:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. On Annexure-J itself, the Magistrate having endorsed as ‘permitted’, the investigation was made and the charge-sheet was filed. 6. Main contention of Sri F.V. Patil is that the alleged offences being non cognizable, the procedure adopted by 2nd respondent i.e. submission of requisition to the Magistrate to grant permission for conducting investigation is without authority of law and that the mechanical and unreasoned ‘permission’ granted by the Magistrate being arbitrary and also illegal and being not ‘an order’, the petition is liable to be allowed. 7. The submissions of Sri Praveen K. Uppar and Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned advocates, on the other hand is that in view of the permission granted by the learned Magistrate, investigation made and charge-sheet having been filed, the petitioner should face trial before the criminal court. 8. The offences alleged by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner being non cognizable, N.C. No.2/2015 was registered by the police for the offences under Ss.504, 506 and 323 of IPC. Illegality has crept in the 2nd respondent seeking the permission of the Magistrate for investigation of the non-cognizable offences, instead of referring the informant to the police. 9. 8. The offences alleged by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner being non cognizable, N.C. No.2/2015 was registered by the police for the offences under Ss.504, 506 and 323 of IPC. Illegality has crept in the 2nd respondent seeking the permission of the Magistrate for investigation of the non-cognizable offences, instead of referring the informant to the police. 9. Sec. 155 of Cr.P.C. 1973 being relevant for ready reference, is extracted hereunder: “155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases:– 1. When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. 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. 3. Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. 4. Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” (Underlining is for emphasis) 10. S.155 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of the information received by the Officer in charge of a Police Station relating to commission of non cognizable offence. As per sub-section (1) of S.155 Cr.P.C. when an Officer in charge of Police Station receives the information as to the commission of a non cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by such Officer in the prescribed form ‘and refer the informant to the Magistrate’. Sub-section (2) of S.155 Cr.P.C. makes it clear, that no Police Officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Sub-section (2) of S.155 Cr.P.C. makes it clear, that no Police Officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Sub-section (1) of S.155 Cr.P.C. which casts a duty on the Station House Officer, who receives information as to the commission of non cognizable offence to enter or cause to be entered the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate, does not enable the SHO himself to approach the Magistrate and seek orders. The provision makes it clear, that the SHO shall refer the informant to the Magistrate, thereby, making clear that it is for the informant to seek the orders of jurisdictional Magistrate for issue of direction to the police for investigation of the case. The Magistrate, on being approached by the informant, if orders investigation, the SHO concerned would get jurisdiction to register the crime, investigate the matter and not otherwise. 11. The Karnataka Police Manual, which does not have statutory force, but contains the guidelines to the Department Officers, in Chapter XXVII, Order 1211 relating to non cognizable cases states as follows: “1211. (1) When a Police Officer finds it necessary to lay information before a Magistrate in a non cognizable case, he may, under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, make a report to the Magistrate in writing of the facts which constitute such offence. (2) If there are persistent complaints against a particular individual, which legally fall under the category of a non-cognizable offence, the following action may be taken:- (a) Obtain orders of the competent court to register the N.C. case and investigate. (b) Initiate action under Section 110 Cr.PC if there is persistent commission of non-cognizable offence by a given individual resulting in breach of peace.” Concededly, there was no other complaint against the petitioner and hence, clause 2(b) supra, is not attracted. 12. In the case of ANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl. P. No. 3082/2007, decided on 22.10.08, this Court has held, “that under S.155 of Cr.P.C., the police officer has no authority to approach the Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission to investigate the case.” 13. In MUKKATIRA ANITHA MACHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, Crl. 12. In the case of ANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl. P. No. 3082/2007, decided on 22.10.08, this Court has held, “that under S.155 of Cr.P.C., the police officer has no authority to approach the Magistrate with a requisition seeking permission to investigate the case.” 13. In MUKKATIRA ANITHA MACHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, Crl. P. No. 5934/2009 decided on 20.08.2013, the 2nd respondent informant, having submitted a complaint, SHO registered a case and submitted a requisition to the Magistrate to accord permission to investigate the matter. With reference to the said requisition, permission was granted by the Magistrate. Investigation was made and the charge-sheet was filed. To quash the chargesheet and all related proceedings, a criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. was filed. By noticing that the procedure adopted by the SHO is without authority of law and holding that same is not contemplated under S.155 Cr.P.C. and that, therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on such a requisition is also without any basis and as such the investigation carried and the charge-sheet filed thereon by the police was held to be without authority of law and the prosecution launched was quashed. 14. In the case of Dr. GURURAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRL. P. 100046/2014, decided on 22.01.2014, a complaint was filed before the police alleging abusive words used and life threat given by the petitioners and about the robbery of some gold ornaments. Police registered the case for the offences under Ss.504, 506 and 392 of IPC and conducted the investigation. It was found that the offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of IPC are only made out. A chargesheet was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Ss.504 and 506 of IPC, registered the criminal case and ordered issue of summons to the accused. It was found that the offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of IPC are only made out. A chargesheet was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Ss.504 and 506 of IPC, registered the criminal case and ordered issue of summons to the accused. The said action was assailed by filing a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the police are empowered to investigate the offences but if the police arrive at the conclusion that only non cognizable offences are made out, then, they can file a report and the Magistrate has to look into the matter and find out, whether cognizance can be taken for the non cognizable offences or whether it requires any further investigation, by referring the matter to the police to reinvestigate the case under S.202 of Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of (i) MAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE, 1999 Crl.L.J. 1592 and (ii) P. KUNHUMUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA, 1981 Crl.L.J. 356. Having considered the matter and finding that the police have submitted chargesheet for the offences under Ss.504 and 506 of IPC and the Magistrate without application of mind and without perusing the charge-sheet papers to ascertain whether the report submitted by the police has to be treated as a complaint under S.2(h) of Cr.P.C. or whether under S.202 Cr.P.C. further investigation is required, has passed the impugned order, the case was remitted to the Magistrate and the criminal petition was disposed of accordingly. 15. In the present case, 2nd respondent having acted contrary to subsection (1) of S.155 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate having not passed ‘an order’, instead, having made an entry ‘permitted’ being not ‘an order’ in the eye of law and in view of the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) of S.155 Cr.P.C., the investigation made and the consequential charge-sheet filed for the offences under Ss.504, 506 and 323 of IPC and the taking of cognizance of those offences and the issue of non bailable warrant in the first instance itself for proceeding further with the case against the accused are absolutely illegal. It is obvious that the police and the Magistrate have not bothered to look into S.155 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in the matter. Non application of mind and mechanical approach to the case are apparent. 16. It is obvious that the police and the Magistrate have not bothered to look into S.155 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in the matter. Non application of mind and mechanical approach to the case are apparent. 16. The question as to how, in what manner and to what extent, the inherent power under S.482 of the Code can be exercised for quashing the registration of FIR/charge-sheet/ complaint etc. is no more res integra. In STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BHAJAN LAL, (1992) 1 SCC SUPP. 535, the propositions of law has been laid down in para 102. The relevant proposition for this case is at Sl. No.(4) and the same reads as follows: “(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155 (2) of the Code.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Statutory safeguard given under S.155(2) Cr.P.C. must be strictly followed, since the same has been conceived in public interest and as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious investigations. 18. In the present case, as is clear from Annexure-J itself, the alleged offences being noncognizable, in view of the safeguard provided under S.155(2) Cr.P.C. the police should have referred the respondent No.3 to the Magistrate. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement, the chargesheet and the order taking cognizance of the offences vide Annexures-H, J and K respectively are quashed. However, it is made clear that it is open to respondent No.3 to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek remedy as is open to him in law. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Director General & Inspector General of Police in Karnataka, who shall have the same webhosted in the Karnataka Police Website for guidance of the Station House Officers.