JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.62/2013 registered by the first respondent police on the complaint made by the second respondent pending before the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the Block Education Officer, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that despite the directions issued to the petitioners, namely, the Secretary of Public Education Society and Principal of St. Miras High School, to admit the students under Right to Education Act, the management refused to admit such students, thereby the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the claim of the second respondent, the Block Education Officer cannot be sustained in law. The petitioners are the minority institutions. Therefore, the action initiated against the said institutions is illegal and not proper and perverse on the part of the second respondent. When the majority of the members belongs to the minority community, who are in the management, it is illegal on the part of the respondent No.2 to venture into such an action in alleging commission of offence as per Section 188 of IPC. The relevant provisions of RTE has no application in so far as the students below the age of six years. The first petitioner had filed the writ petition in W.P. No.13670/2013 (EDN) before this Court seeking for declaration to the effect that right of Compulsory Education Act would not apply to the students who are below the age group of 6 14 years and the Government Advocate is directed to take notice. The registration of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC by the first respondent police on the complaint made by the second respondent cannot be sustained in law. As such, the proceedings initiated are liable to be quashed. 5. The registration of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC by the first respondent police on the complaint made by the second respondent cannot be sustained in law. As such, the proceedings initiated are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that as per the relevant provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 the respondent No.2, namely, the Block Education Officer had issued directions to the petitioners - school authorities to admit 19 students, but the said authorities have denied to admit the students on the reason that stay was granted by the High Court in a writ petition filed by them. There is a prima facie case to prove that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In W.P. No.29061/2014 this Court has observed in para 42 that the petitioner educational institution has got a minority educational institution status as granted by the National Commission for Minorities, but the said educational institution can claim the minority status only in respect of the St. Miras School in Rajajinagar and the same does not come to the rescue of the management for its school in BTM Layout, as the latter is not declared as a minority educational institution. 7. The present case pertains to St. Miras School, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, and there was a direction by the Block Education Officer to admit 19 students and it is reported that the management has denied the admission to the said students on the reason of stay granted by the Honble High Court in the writ petition preferred by them. In view of the observation made in W.P. No.29061/2014 it is evident that the petitioners management school, namely the St. Miras School has got a minority educational institution status and in view of the stay granted by the High Court they have denied the admission. Thus, the ingredients of Section 188 of IPC are not attracted. 8. Another important aspect to be considered is that the offence alleged is under Section 188 IPC which is punishable with simple imprisonment for one month or fine of Rs.200/- or with both. Thus, it is a non cognizable offence. Thus, the ingredients of Section 188 of IPC are not attracted. 8. Another important aspect to be considered is that the offence alleged is under Section 188 IPC which is punishable with simple imprisonment for one month or fine of Rs.200/- or with both. Thus, it is a non cognizable offence. Under these circumstances, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter without obtaining the permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 155 (ii) of Cr.P.C. When an information is given to an officer in charge of a police station regarding commission of an offence which is non cognizable in nature, then he shall have to enter or cause to be entered the substance of information in a book kept by such an officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf and refer the informant to the Magistrate as provided under Section 155(i) of Cr.P.C. 9. Sub Clause (ii) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. states that no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such a case or commit the case for trial. Therefore, what is contemplated under this provision is that it is not the police officer himself shall go to the Magistrate to take the order, but he has to refer the informant to the Magistrate. Apart from that the Magistrate, if any such informant is referred to, has to peruse the contents of the complaint and then satisfy himself whether such facts alleged in the First Information Report requires to be investigated and thereafter by applying his mind has to pass the appropriate orders. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER The petition is dismissed.