ORDER : Crime No.341/2020 of Munnar Police Station was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. He was the admin of the whatsapp group called “Pulikkal” in which he had posted a defamatory statement/messages against the Chief Minister of Kerala and the Minister of Electricity and thereby circulated an undesirable statement among the members of whatsapp group causing nuisance. The FIR so registered is sought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is no compliance of the requirement under Section 155 Cr.P.C.. 2. There is no dispute that the offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 is a non-cognizable offence, hence requires compliance of mandate under Section 155 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has granted sanction invoking the power under Section 155(2)Cr.P.C. at the instance of the investigating officer. The sanction so granted without having an enquiry is also put under challenge. 3. An interesting question came up as to whether it is permissible for the investigating officer to apply and obtain sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and what would be the legal position, if it is granted at the instance of the investigating officer. 4. Section 155 Cr.P.C. is extracted below : “155. Information as to non- cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” (emphasis supplied) 5. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” (emphasis supplied) 5. When an information is given to an officer in charge of a police station regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence within the limits of such police station, the procedure to be adopted is to enter the substance of the information in the general diary kept in the station or in any such book prescribed by the State Government in this behalf. It is not permissible for the police officer to register any crime based on the information regarding commission of a non- cognizable offence, unless coupled with commission of a cognizable offence. Instead of registering a crime with respect to commission of non-cognizable offence, the police officer has to refer the “informant” to the Magistrate in compliance with the mandate under Section 155(1) Cr.P.C.. It is then upto the informant to decide whether he should appear before the Magistrate and submit a written complaint regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence so as to get sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., in which, the police officer has no role to play. The statutory requirement vested with the police officer is only to refer the “informant” to the Magistrate so as to enable him to apply under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to get the crime registered through police. A conjoint reading of sub section (1) and (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. would make the legal position clear that it is not permissible to register crime only against non-cognizable offences, without the order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is also not permissible to the police officer to apply for getting sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. It is the domain of the “informant” who had approached the Police with a complaint, to decide whether he should approach the Magistrate and to obtain sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.. 6. Sub-section (4) to Section 155 Cr.P.C. stands on a different footing and would come into play when there is allegation of commission of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, wherein there is no necessity to comply with the requirement under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.. It is really an exception to the main provision. 6. Sub-section (4) to Section 155 Cr.P.C. stands on a different footing and would come into play when there is allegation of commission of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, wherein there is no necessity to comply with the requirement under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.. It is really an exception to the main provision. But, when a final report is submitted after investigation disclosing commission of a non-cognizable offence, the report so submitted will be a “complaint” and the investigation officer will get the status of “a deemed complainant” in accordance with the definition given under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. Necessarily, a question may arise whether the investigating officer would step into the status of complainant for the purpose of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to get sanction. The words “complainant” or “complaint” not incorporated anywhere in Section 155 Cr.P.C. The non-incorporation of the word “complaint” or “complainant” in Section 155 Cr.P.C. is so conspicuous that the legislature never had the intention either to authorise the officer in charge of police station to investigate a non-cognizable offence without sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., except in cases which would fall under Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C. or to obtain sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. at his instance. 7. Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. is extracted below for reference: “2(d)"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation -A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;" 8. The exhaustive definition given to the word “complaint” by the explanation attached to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. has some relevance when a final report is submitted only with respect to a non-cognizable offence on an investigation commenced based on the allegation of commission of a cognizable offence. There may be situations in which crime was registered and investigated based on commission of cognizable offences, but on investigation, non-cognizable offences alone were disclosed. The submission of final report, for non-cognizable offences alone under that situation cannot be eschewed on the ground of non-compliance of requirement under Section 155(2)Cr.P.C.. There may be situations in which crime was registered and investigated based on commission of cognizable offences, but on investigation, non-cognizable offences alone were disclosed. The submission of final report, for non-cognizable offences alone under that situation cannot be eschewed on the ground of non-compliance of requirement under Section 155(2)Cr.P.C.. In fact, when crime is registered both on the allegation of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, it would fall under the purview of Section 155(4) Cr.P.C., wherein there is no necessity to comply with the requirement under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. It must be understood that the restriction imposed under Section 155(2)Cr.P.C. is only against “investigating” a non-cognizable offence without the sanction of the Magistrate. But no such restriction imposed in submitting a final report with respect to a non-cognizable offence when investigation is properly commenced in accordance with Section 155(4) Cr.P.C.. The deeming provision and the non-obstante clause incorporated in Section 155(4) Cr.P.C. would make it clear that a non-cognizable offence would stand a deemed cognizable one when investigation started in relation to two or more offences of which atleast one is cognizable. When the matter investigated in reference to two or more offences, of which atleast one is cognizable, the case investigated shall deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. In such situation, it is not permissible to go back to the initial stage of proceeding which had set the criminal law in motion validly, for the purpose of compliance of requirement by way of sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.. But, it shall not be used as a device to circumvent the mandate of getting sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. by the officer in charge of the police station or any investigating officer. But, it shall not be used as a device to circumvent the mandate of getting sanction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. by the officer in charge of the police station or any investigating officer. Hence the court should be more cautious in accepting the final report for non- cognizable offences alone excluding the cognizable offence included in the crime at its initial stage and should satisfy whether a cognizable offence was included in the FIR or in the crime bonafidely or whether it is used as a device to circumvent the requirement under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The summary of the above said discussion is that (i) when an investigation was commenced on the allegation of cognizable offence alone or on the allegation of commission of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the submission of final report only against a non-cognizable offence after investigation will not stand hit by non-compliance of Section 155(2)Cr.P.C., but the court must be more cautious in accepting the final report against non-cognizable offence and has to rule out the malafides, if any, in including a cognizable offence at its initial stage and the intention, if any, to use it as a device to circumvent the mandate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., (ii) when non-cognizable offences alone are alleged before commencing investigation or registration of crime, the compliance of the requirement under Section 155 Cr.P.C. cannot be avoided, (iii) when both cognizable and non- cognizable offences are alleged, it would fall under Section 155(4) Cr.P.C., wherein the compliance of mandate under Section 155(2)Cr.P.C. is not required, (iv) the mandate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised at the instance of an officer in charge of a police station or the investigating officer. 9. In the instant case, instead of referring the informant to the Magistrate under Section 155(1) Cr.P.C., the Police registered the crime and submitted an application before the Magistrate for getting sanction and it was granted. It is not in accordance with the mandate under Section 155 Cr.P.C, hence, liable to be quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed by quashing the FIR registered and the further proceedings thereof.