ORDER : These are the petitions filed by respective accused persons under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying the Court to allow the petition and quash the proceedings initiated against the respective petitioners for the alleged of fence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, which are pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibag and some of the petitions on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Raibag. 2. Since the factual story in respect of all the petitions are substantially one the same, the factual aspect in the first petition are that, Kudachi Police, Belagavi district, have registered the case in Crime No. 296/2014 dated 21.11.2014 for the of fence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said crime, wherein the complainant has stated that on 21.11.2014 at about 17.30 hours when he was in Kudachi P.S., he received credible information from his staff that two persons were engaged in playing OC matka/gambling near Alagawadi cross, beside public road in Morab village. After receiving the said information from the said CPC No.981, complainant asked the informant staff to keep a watch on the said persons and immediately after giving the said information to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chjikkodi and CPI, Raibag, the complainant informed the same to his staff in the police station, secured two pancha witnesses and informed them about the information received and they went to the spot in the jeep, observed that two persons were inviting the general public to play OC matka by saying that they would give Rs.80/- for Rs.1/- and will pay Rs.800/- for Rs.8/-. When the complainant and other staff members after ascertaining that accused persons were engaged in the play of illegal OC matka for their benefit, attacked the said persons and captured the accused Nos.1 and 2 while other persons around them ran away from the spot and accused Nos.1 and 2 were caught by the complainant and his staff members seized the amount and other material from both the accused persons under panchanama. After enquiry from the persons arrested, they told their names and it was learnt from accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case, after collecting money and matka chits they give the same to the petitioner. After enquiry from the persons arrested, they told their names and it was learnt from accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case, after collecting money and matka chits they give the same to the petitioner. Accordingly as per the say of accused Nos.1 and 2, the name of the petitioner was also involved in the complaint and FIR which came to be registered for the said of fence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. 3. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the proceedings, they are taken together to dispose of them by this common order, in order to avoid repetition of discussion on the facts and law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument made submission that the said of fence is non cognizable offence and before proceeding with the investigation of the matter, the police have not obtained necessary permission from the concerned JMFC Court. He also made the submission that, in some of the matters though it is the case of the prosecution that the police made application before the JMFC Court and the JMFC Court endorsed as “permitted”. That itself is not sufficient for compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is also his contention that looking to the complaint averments, it goes to show that after receiving the credible information the police along with his staff and pancha witnesses proceed to the spot, conducted the raid and after seizing the matka chits, amount, pen, papers, so also after arresting some of the accused who are present at the spot, came back to the police station and lodged the complaint and registered the FIR. Hence the learned counsel submitted, this goes to show that by the time the FIR came to be registered, more than 50% of the investigation itself was completed. Hence he submitted that looking to these materials placed on record the registration of the case is nothing but it is the abuse of process of the Court and hence submitted to allow the petitions and to quash the proceedings. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel also relied upon the orders of this Court dated 25.7.2014 passed in Crl.P.No.100319/2014 and other connected matters. So also another batch of the petitions order dated 16.11.2015 passed in Crl.P.No.101350/2015 connected with other petitions. 6. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel also relied upon the orders of this Court dated 25.7.2014 passed in Crl.P.No.100319/2014 and other connected matters. So also another batch of the petitions order dated 16.11.2015 passed in Crl.P.No.101350/2015 connected with other petitions. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to Section 88 of the Karnataka Police Act, the police under the said special enactment are authorized to arrest the accused persons and even they can conduct search without obtaining the warrant. Hence he made the submission that when such authority is given to the police, under the special enactment, then the alleged offence under section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act can be considered as cognizable of fence and not as a non cognizable offence. He also made submission that, in some of the cases it is no doubt true the prior permission of the learned JMFC Court was not obtained i.e., in respect of Crl.P.No.101926/2017, Crl.P.No.101933/2017 and Crl.P.No.101934/2017. But in respect of other petitions are concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that an application was made by the concerned police before the JMFC Court and there is permission given by the concerned JMFC Court endorsing on the said application as “permitted”. Hence he made submission that the mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is complied with by the prosecution. It is also his submission that looking to the prosecution material prima facie case is made out against each of the petitioners in respect of all the petitions. Hence he submitted, the petitioners-accused have not made out a case to allow the petitions for quashing the proceedings. Hence he submitted to reject all the petitions. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the respective petitions, FIR, complaint and also the other materials produced. The first and foremost contention of the petitioners is regarding the nature of the offence alleged under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. As per the contention of the petitioners, it is a non cognizable of fence. Hence mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) has to be complied with. But as per the contention of the prosecution, referring to Section 88 of the Karnataka Police Act, it is a cognizable offence. Hence no such permission is necessary. As per the contention of the petitioners, it is a non cognizable of fence. Hence mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) has to be complied with. But as per the contention of the prosecution, referring to Section 88 of the Karnataka Police Act, it is a cognizable offence. Hence no such permission is necessary. But in this regard the learned single Judge of this Court in batch of cases taken a view that Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act is a non cognizable of fence and hence prior permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is essential. The learned single Judge referring to the Schedule-I, part-II of the Cr.P.C., comes to such conclusion. As ascertained from the learned High Court Government Pleader that until now the said order of the learned single Judge is not at all set aside in any of the proceedings. Therefore I am of the opinion that the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act is a non cognizable of fence. Hence the mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) is made applicable. 8. Admittedly even according to the prosecution in three of the petitions no such permission was obtained and so far as the other petitions are concerned, though it is contended that the learned JMFC passed the order on the requisition made by the police as “permitted”, but whether the said endorsement by the learned JMFC is amounting to permission in the real sense and really it is in compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The purpose of giving such power to the JMFC Court is that the learned Magistrate has to apply his mind to the materials. After perusing the materials, firstly he has to take a decision whether he is satisfied with the said material that it is required to give permission to the police to proceed with the investigation of the matter. When this is the purpose of giving such power to the learned JMFC, only making endorsement as “permitted” is not in compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is not a speaking order. There is no indication about the mental application by the learned JMFC to any of the materials. Therefore even if the prosecution relied upon said material, it cannot be said to be in compliance of the mandatory requirements. 9. There is no indication about the mental application by the learned JMFC to any of the materials. Therefore even if the prosecution relied upon said material, it cannot be said to be in compliance of the mandatory requirements. 9. Now, coming to the merits of the case, as it is rightly submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the materials placed on record, by the time FIR came to be registered, the police visiting the spot, conducting the raid, arresting some of the accused, conducting the mahazar, seizing matka chits, money, pen, paper and all other materials is over. Therefore more than 50% of the investigation is completed by the time the police came to the police station and registered FIR. Considering all these aspects of the matter, so also the similar matters which were considered by this Court in batch of the petitions, the order dated 25.7.2014 in Crl.P.No.100319/2014 connected with other petitions, so also the order dated 16.11.2015 in Crl.P.No.101350/2015 connected with other petitions, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a case that registration of criminal case is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Even if the proceedings are continued by conducting the trial, the proceedings, according to me it is a futile exercise on the part of the prosecution and it is the waste of valuable time and energy of the Court also. 10. Hence all the above criminal petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the said accused persons in the respective proceedings are hereby quashed.