JUDGMENT 1. I.A.No.1/2019 has been filed by the respondent State seeking for vacating the interim order of stay granted on 22.09.2017. The stay order was in force till the next date of hearing. Subsequent thereto the order was not extended. Therefore, the order lapsed on the very next date i.e., on 10.11.2017. Hence, there would be no need to consider I.A.No.1/2019, since there is no interim order is in force. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is disposed of. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.439 of 2017 of Khadebazar P.S. Crime No.71 of 2016 pending before the JMFC-III Court, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 103 and 109 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 insofar as accused No.2 is concerned. 3. The Police Inspector filed a complaint alleging that there was a request to grant permission for Ram Navami procession from Ambedkar Garden via Kakatives road, Ramlingkindi Galli to Homa Chowk on 26.03.2016 to the Police Commissioner, Belagavi. The permission for the said procession was refused on the ground that the area in which the procession was to pass through was a very sensitive area and it would be very difficult for the Police to maintain law and order on 02.04.2016. 4. The Ram Navami Committee represented by its members more particularly the petitioner herein filed W.P.Nos.103238-39 of 2016 before this Court, which came to be allowed with stringent conditions. It was made clear to the petitioner, who had represented the said Ram Navami Committee that there should be no violation of any of the conditions. An affidavit of undertaking was also submitted by the petitioner towards the same. 5. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 15.04.2016 at about 3:00 p.m. the procession had started from the Ambedkar Garden with about 500 members and contrary to the orders of this Court, a tractor with DJ sound system was also part of said procession and thereby violated the condition No.6 issued by this Court. 5. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 15.04.2016 at about 3:00 p.m. the procession had started from the Ambedkar Garden with about 500 members and contrary to the orders of this Court, a tractor with DJ sound system was also part of said procession and thereby violated the condition No.6 issued by this Court. The procession caused several traffic jams and despite the Police requesting and their office bearers of the committee did not heed to the said request and though the procession was required to be completed at 5:00 p.m. as ordered by this Court, the procession went on until 8:00 p.m. On the basis of the above, a complaint was filed stating that on account of the improper conduct of the procession block on the main road of the Belagavi, several people were struck down in traffic jam, which would amount to wrongful confinement of the general public, there was also tremendous inconvenience caused to the general public. 6. Shri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there is no case made out against the petitioner herein and the petitioner was not even the part of procession and his name is not found in the complaint filed. Therefore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. He further submits that it is only to overcome the requirement of obtaining prior permission in terms of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. that cognizable offence like that Section 341 of Cr.P.C. has been falsely included in the complaint. Hence, he submits that if the offence under Section 34 of IPC is eschewed, the other offences being non-cognizable, permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. ought to have been obtained, which admittedly has not been obtained. Therefore, the investigation being without such permission has to be quashed. He further submits that no charges to be framed against this petitioner-accused No.2. He further submits that the requirement under Section 212 of Cr.P.C. is also violated in terms of the charge against the petitioner does not include particularly as to the time and place of the alleged offences. 7. He further submits that no charges to be framed against this petitioner-accused No.2. He further submits that the requirement under Section 212 of Cr.P.C. is also violated in terms of the charge against the petitioner does not include particularly as to the time and place of the alleged offences. 7. Learned HCGP per contra would submits that CWs.14 to 16 have categorically stated as regards the offences having been committed by the accused, the time of the said offence being from 3:00 p.m. onwards and place of the offence being Channamma Circle, College Road and thereafter from Ganesh Temple, Sanman Junction, Bogarways (Dhamveer Sambhaji Chown) Nucles Mall- Ramling Khind Galli Tilak Chowk. The time and place as also the names of the person have been categorically mentioned. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 212 of Cr.P.C. 8. As regards the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 341 of Cr.P.C., the learned HCGP submits that the entire area had been blocked and there were several members of the public who have complained and the aspect of the complaint or otherwise of public is a matter of trial and these offences would be proved during the course of trial. 9. Learned HCGP further submits that it is only when all offences complained are non-cognizable against the permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is required to be obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate. When the offences complained are both cognizable and non-cognizable offices, there is nothing preventing the police to investigate the matter and register the complaint and also to file charge sheet. The embargo under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. would not come in the way of the investigation, where there are cognizable offence committed. 10. Heard Shri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the documents. 11. On a perusal of the documents, it is seen that the application for permission to hold procession had been in fact rejected by the Police Authorities taking into consideration the sensitivity of the same. However, when the petitioner approached this Court to challenge the said refusal, this Court permitted the procession subject to following conditions: 1. The processions should be concluded before 5:00 p.m. 2. The petitioner have to abide by the conditions imposed by the police. 3. Not to hurt the sentiments of other reasons. 4. Not to shout slogans that hurt other religions. The processions should be concluded before 5:00 p.m. 2. The petitioner have to abide by the conditions imposed by the police. 3. Not to hurt the sentiments of other reasons. 4. Not to shout slogans that hurt other religions. 5. Organizers shall be responsible if any untoward incidents happen. 6. Loud speaker should not be issued above permissible decibel and 7. No body should be used during the procession. 12. Admittedly, W.P.Nos.103238-39 of 2016 had been filed by the Ram Navami Committee, represented by the petitioner and it is the petitioner who had submitted an affidavit of undertaking categorically stating that the above conditions would be complied with. Therefore, it is now permissible for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was not part of the procession. It appears that the petitioner is trying to overcome the offence alleged against him, as also to commit blatant violation of the orders of this Court. 13. Shri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that if at all there is any violation of the order of this Court, contempt proceedings could have been initiated. Such contention is being observed to be only rejected when a civil offence is committed, the Police Authorities are not required to file contempt proceedings, but can always initiate necessary proceedings as regards the offences complained of. 14. The other contention of Shri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 212 of Cr.P.C. is very well answered by submission made by the learned HCGP and all details as required to comply with Section 212 of Cr.P.C. are available. 15. The offences alleged against the petitioner being both cognizable and non-cognizable would not require any permission to be obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate prior to registering the complaint and or investigation. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would also not hold any water, hence is rejected. 16. In view of what is discussed above, it is not a fit case for exercising power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vitthal S.Teli are in the nature of the defenses by the petitioner, which could be raised before the trial Court. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed.