ORDER : 1. Learned Additional SPP takes notice for respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners to serve copy of petition and enclosures on learned Additional SPP. 3. Having considered the nature of relief claimed in petition, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 4. The only contention urged by learned counsel for petitioners is that the offences alleged against petitioners are non-cognizable offences and hence, investigation could not have been embarked upon by respondent-Police without prior authorization of Magistrate as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 contends that requisition was made by Investigating Officer to learned Magistrate on 7.6.2018 before registering the case and learned Magistrate has endorsed his permission on the requisition. Hence, there is substantial compliance of the requirements mandated in Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 6. The issue is no more resintegrain view of decision of this Court in Praveen Basavanneppa Shivalli Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2017(1) AKR 461, wherein considering the identical endorsements made in the requisition of Investigating Officer, this Court has held that such an endorsement is not an ‘order’ within the meaning of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. In view of violation of mandatory requirements of law, proceedings are liable to be quashed. Resultantly, petition is allowed. FIR registered against petitioners in Crime No.166/2018 and the consequent investigation taken up thereon by respondent No.1 is quashed. Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed in the matter and take appropriate action against petitioners by complying with the legal requirements under the Code.