ORDER : 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short] challenging Annexure.A7 order dated 30.11.2022 in C.M.P. No. 1713/2021 in C.C. No. 326/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, whereby petition under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. Perused the relevant materials available. 3. In this matter, initially the FIR was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC by the accused. On investigation, Final Report filed alleging the said offences. Then, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the entire proceedings and as per Annexure.A6 order in Crl. M.C. No. 2308/2017, this Court partly allowed the Crl. M.C. and quashed offences under Sections 447 and 294(b) of IPC, since the same were not made out. At the same time, it is also held that, the petitioner is liable to be proceeded for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 1713/2021 in C.C. No. 326/2016 under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge and the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate relaying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1996) 11 SCC 557 and also in terms of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. 4. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that, in this matter, as per Annexure.A6 order of this Court in Crl. M.C. No. 2308/2017, this Court quashed cognizable offences and remaining are only non-cognizable offences, for which the trial court could not take cognizance, acting on the Police report, in view of the bar under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get discharge as prayed for, under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he pressed for interference in the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of this Court reported in James Jose v. State of Kerala, 2019 (3) KHC 531 : 2019 (3) KHC 531 : 2019 (3) KLT 415 in support of his contention. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of this Court reported in James Jose v. State of Kerala, 2019 (3) KHC 531 : 2019 (3) KHC 531 : 2019 (3) KLT 415 in support of his contention. In the said decision, this Court considered a case, where non-cognizable offences under Sections 506(1) and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act were alleged, while registering the FIR, without an order of a Magistrate as provided under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Then, Final Report was filed incorporating offences under Sections 506(1) and 294(b) of IPC as well as under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. In the said case, this Court held that the investigation of the crime, without permission of the Magistrate was hit under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In fact, on the facts of the said case, the ratio of the above decision is absolutely correct. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed decision of this Court reported in Haneefa and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2022 (7) KHC 584 : 2023 (1) KLJ 118 , with reference to paragraph Nos.15, 19 and 20 of the decision. Paragraph Nos. 15, 19 and 20 are as under: 15. Relying upon the above decisions, this Court, in Mehaboob's case (supra), held that in non-cognizable offences, registering an FIR, conducting the investigation, filing a final report, and taking cognizance without obtaining an order from the Magistrate are all illegal. In view of the principles laid down in Keshav Lal Thakur's case (supra) and Mehaboob's case (supra), it is clear that when only non-cognizable offences are alleged initially, investigation cannot be commenced without orders from the Magistrate. Issue No. (ii) Can cognizance be taken when the final report pursuant to an investigation into a non-cognizable offence commenced without orders from the Magistrate reveals a cognizable offence also? 19. Therefore, as observed in Biju V.G.'s case, while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate ought to be cautious and find out whether the addition of a cognizable offence was to overcome the bar of section 155(2) Cr.P.C. If the addition of the cognizable offence was a device to overcome the statutory interdiction, cognizance cannot be taken. Issue No. (iii) Is the final report in the present case liable to be quashed? 20. Issue No. (iii) Is the final report in the present case liable to be quashed? 20. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate had not verified whether the inclusion of a cognizable offence under section 420 was to overcome the restriction under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. It is noticed that the FIR was registered without obtaining orders from the Magistrate and included only non-cognizable offences. Therefore the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned order is perfectly justified. He further submitted that, in this case, investigation started alleging commission of cognizable offences as well as non-cognizable offences and as per Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C. when one among the offences is cognizable, all other offences are cognizable for the purpose of that particular case. Therefore, even though this Court quashed the cognizable offences as per Annexure.A6 order, there is no harm in proceeding with the other offences, for which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and the bar under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. has no application. 8. The same argument is shared by the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, while opposing interference in the impugned order. 9. In this matter, two provisions of Cr.P.C. are relevant, viz. Sections 155 (2) and 155 (4) of Cr.P.C. The same are as under: 155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases: xxx xxx xxx (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. xxx xxx xxx (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. 10. It is true that, the Police has no power to investigate a case involving non-cognizable offences alone, without the order of the Magistrate and if 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 as per Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C. 11. In the instant case, the investigation started alleging commission of non-cognizable and cognizable offences. Therefore, the investigation for all the offences alleged in the FIR are deemed to be in a cognizable case. In the instant case, the investigation started alleging commission of non-cognizable and cognizable offences. Therefore, the investigation for all the offences alleged in the FIR are deemed to be in a cognizable case. In Haneefa and Others’s case (supra) also this Court addressed the impact of Section 155 and sub sections 155(2) and 155(4) of Cr.P.C. in a case where also FIR was registered only for non-cognizable offences and held as above. In such view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not legally sustainable and the same is repelled. 12. In so far as the finding of the trial court as to dismissal of the discharge petition is concerned, the learned Magistrate categorically found that, prima facie, offences alleged alleged against the accused/petitioner are made out, warranting trial of the case. The said finding is absolutely correct, in view of Annexure.A6 order, whereby this Court already found so, for which no challenge raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly justifiable and the same does not require interference. 13. Accordingly, this petition lacks merits. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed. 14. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, within three days, for information and further steps.