ORDER : 1. Petitioner herein was a contesting candidate of State Legislative Assembly Elections for State Assembly Seat – Rampur, Korba held on 19/11/2013. He was found campaigning during the restricted period of 48 hours prior to the result of poll on 18/11/2013 along with certain canvassing materials (cards) pursuant to which the Returning Officer informed the S.H.O. of Police Station Rajgamar Chouki, Balco to take action against the petitioner under Section 126(2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (in short “the Act of 1951”). Thereafter, on 06/12/2013, respondent No. 2 sought permission from learned Judicial Magistrate for filing of chargesheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Korba on 06/12/2013, finding that offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 is a non-cognizable offence, permitted the S.H.O. to file istegasha against the petitioner and thereafter, on 27/12/2013, istegasha for offence punishable under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 was filed against the petitioner and learned trial Court has even proceeded with the matter and charges have been framed against the petitioner on 18/08/2015 and application under Section 258 of CrPC was moved by the petitioner which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 12/02/2014 which was further challenged by the petitioner in revision but that too was dismissed. The instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 825/2014 (State v. Nanki Ram Kanwar) pending before in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. 2. Respondents/State has filed its return opposing the petition stating inter alia that prima facie petitioner has committed offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951, therefore, the instant petition, as framed and filed, is not maintainable and it is not a case for quashing the criminal charges framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 is a non­cognizable offence, no permission for investigation has been granted to the S.H.O., Police Chowki, Rajgamar, Balco under Section 155(2) of CrPC and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering Judicial Magistrate for granting permission to file istegasha before the criminal Court, as such, it is absolutely bad and without authority of law. He would also submit that even the prosecution has clearly stated that there is no material available against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951, yet the application filed by the petitioner under Section 258 of CrPC was rejected, as such, the prosecution of offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 against the petitioner be quashed. 4. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, would support the impugned order and submit that petitioner has correctly been chargesheeted for offence punishable under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Petitioner has been chargesheeted for offence punishable under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951. It is the allegation of respondents/State that petitioner has contravened the provisions contained under Section 126(1) of the Act of 1951 and therefore, he is liable for punishment under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 which provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or fine, or both. 7. By virtue of the First Schedule Part – II appended with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides for classification of offences against other laws and if offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine or both, the offence would be non­cognizable and it will be bailable and triable by any Magistrate. Thus, commission of offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951, for which punishment prescribed is imprisonment for two years or with fine or both, would be a non­cognizable offence and it cannot be investigated by a police officer without taking permission from the Magistrate having power to try such case under Section 155(2) or CrPC. 8. Section 155 of CrPC provides as under : “155. 8. Section 155 of CrPC provides as under : “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 cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” 9. A careful perusal of Sub­section (2) of Section 155 of CrPC would show that the said provision begins with the word that no police officer shall investigate a non­cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case, as such, the provision is explicit and there is legislative injunction to the police officer not to investigate any non­cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case, and once there is legislative injunction to the police authority not to investigate the non­cognizable case, it is the duty and responsibility of the police officer to see that non­cognizable cases are not investigated without express order of the Magistrate having jurisdiction and power to try such non­cognizable offences. 10. The aforesaid provision of obtaining the permission for investigation is a mandatory requirement and if there is non­compliance of the said provision, the investigation which is carried out by the police officer would be rendered illegal and void. 11. In the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. 10. The aforesaid provision of obtaining the permission for investigation is a mandatory requirement and if there is non­compliance of the said provision, the investigation which is carried out by the police officer would be rendered illegal and void. 11. In the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the non­cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code and held as under :­ (102) (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute any non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.” 12. In the matter of Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1996) 11 SCC 557 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that offence under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, investigation for the said offence without order of the competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC is illegal. Relevant paragraph of the report states as under :­ “On the own showing of the police, the offence under Section 31 of the Act is non-cognizable and therefore the police could not have registered a case for such an offence under Section 154 CrPC. Of course, the police is entitled to investigate into a non­cognizable offence pursuant to an order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC but, admittedly, no such order was passed in the instant case. That necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate into the offence in question nor submit a report on which the question of taking cognizance could have arisen. That necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate into the offence in question nor submit a report on which the question of taking cognizance could have arisen. While on this point, it may be mentioned that in view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, which defines 'complaint', the police is entitled to submit, after investigation, a report relating to a non­cognizable offence in which case such a report is to be treated as a “complaint” of the police officer concerned, but that explanation will not be available to the prosecution here as that relates to a case where the police initiates investigation into a cognizable offence – unlike the present one – but ultimately finds that only a non­cognizable offence has been made out.” 13. Now, the question whether subsequent permission, if any, granted by the Magistrate at the time of filing of chargesheet, would cure illegality if no order has been granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. 14. The investigation of a non­cognizable offence by the police without the permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, subsequent permission granted cannot cure the illegality as police officer has no jurisdiction to investigate non­cognizable offence without order of the Magistrate. (See : Siddanagouda v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cri.L.J. 2162) 15. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951, being non­cognizable offence, could not have been investigated by the Police without the order of the Magistrate or committing the case for trial and admittedly, no such permission was taken by the Police for investigation of offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 against the petitioner. The respondents/State have devised a new method altogether for chargesheeting the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. On 29/11/2013, the Returning Officer informed the Superintendent of Police, Korba that petitioner was found campaigning during the period of 48 hours prior to conclusion of poll and show cause notice was also issued for the same to the petitioner, but his reply was found unsatisfactory, as such, legal action be taken against him for offence punishable under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951. Pursuant to the said report, the S.H.O., Police Chowki, Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar, on 06/12/2013, sought permission from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba for filing charge­sheet against the petitioner which was eventually granted by learned Magistrate by order dated 06/12/2013 (Annexure P/10), which states as under :­ ^^06@12@2013 Fkkuk ckydks iqfyl pkSdh jtxekj ds pkSdh izHkkjh eaxy /kzqo us ,d vkosnu oklrs yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 126 ¼2½ dk bZLrxk'kk is'k djus dh vuqefr ckcr~ izLrqr fd;kA jtxekj ds pkSdh izHkkjh eaxy /kzqo us fuosnu fd;k fd fo/kku lHkk pquko 2013 ds ernku fnol 19-11-2013 ds ernku lekfIr ds iwoZ 48 ?kaVk dh dkykof/k esa pquko izpkj izfrfuf/k vof/k fnukad 18-11-2013 ds nkSjku pquko dsanz 64 xzke xqMek esa izpkj lkexzh] jaxhu QksVks ,oa pquko fpUg ;qor fcYYkk dh tIrh izs{kd rFkk lsDVj vf/kdkjh dzekad 11 jtxekj }kjk tIrh dk;Zokgh fd;k x;k gSA jtxekj ds pkSdh izHkkjh eaxy /kzqo us fuosnu fd;k fd mDr d`R; yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 126 ¼2½ dk mYYk?kau ik;s tkus ij vH;FkhZ uudh jke daoj Hkkjrh; turk ikVhZ fo/kku lHkk {ks= dzekad 20 ds fo:) bZjrxk'kk is'k djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkos D;ksafd ekeyk vlaKs; izd`fr dk gSA bl laca/k esa muds }kjk izLrqr vkosnu] nLrkostks] ds'k Mk;jh] tIr pquko fpUg dk ikEiysV dh Nk;kizfr ftlesa uudh jke daoj izR;k'kh gS lfgr fnukad 18-11-2013 dks fjVkZfuax vkfQlj fo/kku lHkk {ks= Øekad 20 ds izR;k'kh uudh jke daoj dks fn;s x;s dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ,oa iapuke fnukad 22-10-2013 rFkk vuqjk/kk vxzoky uk;c rglhynkj dksjck ds i= dh Nk;kizfr lfgr fjVkZfuax vkfQlj }kjk fnukad 29-11- 2013 dks iqfyl v/kh{kd dksjck dks fn;s i= ,oa nLrkostksa ds voyksdu i'pkr~ pawfd yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 126 ¼2½ vlaKs; izd`fr dk vijk/k gSA vRk% ,slh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr Fkkuk izHkkjh dks vH;FkhZ uudh jke daoj Hkktik fo/kku lHkk {ks= dzekad 20 jkeiqj ds fo:) bZLrxk'kk is'k djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA dsl Mk;jh okil fd;k tkosA lgh@& fouksn dqekj nsokaxu U;kf;d eftLVzsV izFke Js.kh dksjck ftyk&dksjck ¼N-x-½ 16. A careful perusal of the aforesaid order would show that learned Magistrate, after having held that offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 is a non­cognizable offence, further held that it would be appropriate to permit the S.H.O., Police Chowki, Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar to file charge­sheet (istegasha) against the petitioner. A careful perusal of the aforesaid order would show that learned Magistrate, after having held that offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 is a non­cognizable offence, further held that it would be appropriate to permit the S.H.O., Police Chowki, Rajgamar, Police Station Balco Nagar to file charge­sheet (istegasha) against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Judicial Magistrate to authorize the Police to file charge­sheet in a non­cognizable case/offence unless permission under Section 155(2) of CrPC for investigation of non­cognizable case is granted and the same is investigated in accordance with law, which is admittedly neither sought for nor granted in the instant case. Such a permission authorizing the respondents/State to file charge­sheet for a non­cognizable offence under Section 126(1) of the Act of 1951 is unknown to law and is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and lacks legislative sanction as well, as such, it deserves to be quashed. 17. There is one more reason for quashing the chargesheet filed against the petitioner. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 126 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which states as under :­ “126. Prohibition of public meetings during period of forty­eight hours ending with hour fixed for conclusion of poll. ­ (1) No person shall ­ (a) convene, hold, attend, join or address any public meeting or procession in connection with an election; or (b) display to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph, television or other similar apparatus; or (c) propagate any election matter to the public by holding, or by arranging the holding of, any musical concert or any theatrical performance or any other entertainment or amusement with a view to attracting the members of the public thereto, in any polling area during the period of forty­eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the poll for any election in that polling area. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub­section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both. (3) In this section, the expression “election matter” means any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election.” 18. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub­section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both. (3) In this section, the expression “election matter” means any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election.” 18. The above­stated provision was substituted by Act No. 21 of 1996 w.e.f. 01/08/1996 and by this provision restriction has been proposed on holding public meeting by all concerned. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that Section 126 of the Act of 1951 prohibits public meetings by one and all in any polling area during the period of forty­eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the poll and it prohibits a person to convene, hold, attend, join or address any public meeting or procession in connection with an election or display to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph, television or other similar apparatus or propagate any election matter to the public by holding, or by arranging the holding of, any musical concert or any theatrical performance or any other entertainment or amusement with a view to attracting the members of the public thereto, in any polling area during the period of forty­eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the poll for any election in that polling area. 19. 19. However, the allegation made against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 is contained in the letter dated 29/11/2013 (Annexure P­7) addressed by the Returning Officer to the Superintendent of Police, Korba, which states as under :­ ^^dz-@2056@lkek-fuokZ-@fo-l-pq@2013 dksjck fnukad % 29@11@2013 izfr] iqfyl v/kh{kd] dksjck ¼N-x-½ fo"k; % & izfrca/k vof/k esa pquko izpkj fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh gsrqA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fo/kku lHkk fuokZpu & 2013 gsrq ernku fnol fnukad 19@11@2013 dks ernku lekfIr ds iwoZ 48 ?kaVks dh dkykof/k esa pquko izpkj izfrcaf/kr gSA bl izfrcaf/kr vof/k ds nkSjku fnukad 18@11@2013 dks fo/kku lHkk {ks= dz- 20&jkeiqj ¼v-t-tk-½ ds vUrxZr ernku dsanz dzekad&34 xzke xksMek esa izpkj lkexzh jaxhu QksVks ,oa pquko fpUg ;qDr fcYYkk ¼dkMZ ds leku½ izs{kd egksn; dh mifLFkfr esa tIr fd;k x;k gS] mDr dk;Zokgh dk izfrosnu] iapukek lfgr lsDVj vf/kdkjh dz- 11 jtxekj }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk fd;k x;k mDr d`R; yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 126 ¼[k½ ds varxZr izfrcaf/kr gS rFkk yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 126 ¼2½ ds izko/kku ds varxZr n.Muh; gSA rRlaca/k esa fnukad 18@11@2013 dks vH;FkhZ dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh dj 48 ?kaVs esa tokc ekaxk x;k Fkk] vH;FkhZ }kjk fnukad 21@11@2013 dks tokc izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks lek/kkudkjd ugh gSA vr% vH;FkhZ Jh uudh jke daoj] Hkkjrh; turk ikVhZ- fo-l-{ks= dz- 20&jkeiqj] irk&/kuokj ikjk] jkuh jksM] dksjck ¼N0x0½ ds fo:) yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e 1951 dh /kkjk 126 ¼2½ ds izko/kku ds vUrxZr oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh dj v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ dks voxr djkosaA layXu %& nLrkostA lgh@& fjVfuZax vkWfQlj fo/kkulHkk {ks= dz-20&jkeiqj ¼v-t-tk-½ ftyk&dksjck ¼N-x-½^^ 20. From a careful perusal of the aforesaid memo, it is quite clear that there is no such allegation in the charge­sheet that petitioner has convened, held, attended, joined or addressed any meeting in public place or procession in connection with the election or displayed to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph, television or other similar apparatus or propagated any election matter to the public by holding, or by arranging the holding of, any musical concert or any theatrical performance or any other entertainment or amusement with a view to attracting the members of the public and as such, taking the contents of the charge­sheet as it is in its face value and accepted in its entirety, the only allegation against the petitioner is that on 18/11/2013 at Village Gudma, Polling Centre No. 64, petitioner being a contesting candidate, he was found in possession of election canvassing material and was further found campaigning for his election which is electoral offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951. Thus, in light of sub­paragraph (1) of paragraph 102 of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations of the chargesheet taken as it is, does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 126(1) of the Act of 1951 against the petitioner and as such, the istegasha filed against the petitioner under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 deserves to be quashed in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 of CrPC in the interest of justice. 21. Consequently, the charge­sheet filed against the petitioner, being in violation of the provisions contained under Section 155(2) of CrPC and also on merit, is hereby quashed as taking the contents of the charge­sheet as it is, no offence under Section 126(2) of the Act of 1951 is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, Criminal Case No. 825/2014 (State v. NankiRam Kanwar) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 22. The instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).