ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No. 21/2014 of Konanur Police Station, before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC., Arakalgudu, Hassan District, for the offences punishable under Section 5, 28, 39 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and also Section 420 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his petition are that on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sakaleshpur Town, Hassan District, a case was registered by Konanur Police Station against the petitioner in Crime No. 21/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 28 and 39 of the Act and Section 420 of IPC. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner is carrying on business of money lending without possessing any valid license and he is charging exorbitant interest on the persons who have taken loan from him and as such he has violated the provisions of the Act. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid case was registered. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The main grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C.H. Jadhav, appearing for the petitioner, apart from the grounds in the petition, are that the petitioner is not the money lender and he is not doing any money lending business. The police have conducted the search and seizure which is in violation of Sections 102, 165 and 154 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the said authorities have not registered the case which is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the said offences are cognizable and the law mandates that the case must be registered in the first instance and thereafter further investigation has to be done in this behalf and there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2014)2 SCC 1 . By drawing my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Ramesh Vs. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2014)2 SCC 1 . By drawing my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka, in Criminal Petition No. 100590/2017, disposed of on 10.8.2017, he also submitted that the provisions of the Act and the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act have not been followed in the present case. Apart from that, he submitted that nobody made a complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner is charging exorbitant interest on the loan given to the persons. In the absence of such material, straight away going to the house of the petitioner against the procedure contemplated under Section 15 of the Act, there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the search was done on 22.1.2014 and the complaint came to be registered on 23.1.2014 at about 5.45 p.m. and therefore there is an inordinate delay in registration of the case. He further submitted that the procedure which has been adopted by the Registering Authority is illegal, arbitrary and is against the principles of natural justice. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued by contending that the said complaint is a suo moto complaint and there is no question of making any allegations by anybody and the allegation against the petitioner is that he is charging exorbitant interest on the persons who have taken loan from him. He further submitted that even the alleged search is in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and it is contemplated in accordance with law. He further submitted that in order to claim the benefit under Section 15 of the Act, the petitioner must have a valid license and if he is not holding such license, he cannot claim the benefit under Section 15 of the Act. He further submitted that looking to the procedure adopted by the police, only with the permission, they entered the house of the petitioner made a search and seized the documents. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition as devoid of merit. He further submitted that looking to the procedure adopted by the police, only with the permission, they entered the house of the petitioner made a search and seized the documents. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition as devoid of merit. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, the documents produced in the case, so also perused the decisions quoted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the complaint dated 23.1.2014 it indicates that the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies has filed a complaint after making search in the house of the accused petitioner. The said search has been conducted on 22.1.2014 at 5.00 p.m. along with his staff and the case was registered in Crime No. 21/2014 on 23.1.2014 at 5.45 p.m. which itself clearly goes to show that before making search by the concerned authority no case was registered with the police. Therefore, in view of the said facts and circumstances of the case, on the information given by the concerned authorities if it is a cognizable offence and if a case has not been registered and FIR has not been issued, then under such circumstances, the said act of the respondents appears to be in violation of the procedure established under law. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others, (quoted supra), wherein at paragraph 119 it has been observed as under : “Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.” 6. In the aforesaid decision itself, it has been observed that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if the information discloses the commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible, in such a situation. On going through the complaint and the provisions of Sections 5, 28, and 39 of the Act it clearly goes to show that the said offences are cognizable offences then under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. are also made applicable. When the said provisions are made applicable, the police cannot avoid their duty to register the case if cognizable offence is disclosed in this behalf. The records clearly go to show that the said authorities have not followed the provisions of Sections 102 and 165 of Cr.P.C. Non following of the same also violates the mandatory provisions. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussion held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that when once the provisions of the Act say that the said offence is cognizable offence and the provisions of the Act have not been followed properly and even when the search has been made without registration of the case, as held by the Honb’le Apex Court, the said act of the respondents is in violation of the said provisions. Even as could be seen from the decision of this Court in the case of Mr.Ramesh Vs. Even as could be seen from the decision of this Court in the case of Mr.Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka (referred to above), wherein it has been observed that the provisions of the Act and the procedure under Section 5 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act have been followed in this case and nobody has filed any complaint against the petitioner reporting that he is charging exorbitant interest on the persons who have taken the loan from him. In the absence of such material, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies straight away going to the house of the petitioner against the procedure contemplated under Section 15 of the Act is not sustainable in law. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 21/2014 of Konanur Police Station, before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC., Arakalgudu, Hassan District, for the offences punishable under Section 5, 28, 39 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and also Section 420 of IPC is quashed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1/2016 and 1/2016 are dismissed as they do not survive for consideration.