ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C’ for short) by the sole accused in C.C.No.393/2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally, arising out of Crime No.753/2020 of Manimala Police Station, Kottayam, with the following prayers: “a) to allow the Criminal Miscellaneous petition and to quash the final report in C.C.No.393/2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court-II, Kanjirappilly, in F.I.R Number 753/2020 of Manimala Police Station, Kottayam District. b) Issue any other order as this Honurable Court shall deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and also prayed for during the pendency of the case.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records and relevant decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that the accused, with intention to defame the defacto complainant, published a false news on 13.06.2020 through “Ente Gramam Manimala”, WhatsApp group, to the effect that the defacto complainant died. The message published in the WhatsApp group is as under: “evare ariyumo karikatoor government schoolile teacher maranapetu”. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. While impeaching the final report, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds. The first ground raised is that since offence under Section 120(o) of the Police Act is a non cognizable, the police cannot take cognizance without the order of a Magistrate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C’ for short hereafter), no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. He has placed decisions of this Court reported in [ 2020(6) KLT 184 ], Biju v. State of Kerala and also [ 2016 (1) KHC 442 : 2016 (1) KLD 246 : 2016 (1) KLT 538 : 2016 (1) KLJ 454 : ILR 2016 (1) Ker. 914 : 2016 CriLJ 1404 : 2016(1) KHC 442 ], Abhishek Singh (IAS) v. Amit Meena (IAS) & anr. 4. 914 : 2016 CriLJ 1404 : 2016(1) KHC 442 ], Abhishek Singh (IAS) v. Amit Meena (IAS) & anr. 4. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the quashment sought for on the ground that in this case the investigation was carried out as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate and he has relied on order No.1934/2020 dated 16.07.2020 issued by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally in this regard. 5. Now the legal questions arise for consideration are: (i) Is it permissible to sanction order authorising a police officer to investigate a crime involving non-cognizable offence/s by the Judicial Magistrate on the application of a police officer? (ii) Whether it is mandatory that such order of sanction to be issued by the Magistrate only, on the application of the aggrieved person or the complainant? (iii) Is it legally correct to hold that the entire investigation and subsequent events thereof are non-est, when investigation was the outcome of an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 155(2) on the application of a police officer? 6. In this regard, it is apposite to refer a decision of this Court reported in [ 2016 (3) KLT 309 ], Anto Joseph v. State of Kerala, and in the said case this Court considered a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 506 Part I of IPC when the matter was reported to Mangalam Dam Police Station. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police sought permission of the learned Magistrate and after getting order to investigate, he had registered a crime. In the said case, this Court after referring Section 155 of Cr.P.C observed in paragraph 19 as under: “19. A reading of sub-section (2) will reveal that upon information given of the commission of a non-cognizable offence, a police offer can, instead of merely referring the informant to the Magistrate under S.155(1), report the case to the Magistrate under S.155(2), who can, under such circumstances, order such investigation, without first taking cognizance of the offence under S.190 of the Code. Once a police officer takes up investigation of a non-cognizable case, after getting due orders, the investigation which he holds becomes an investigation under Chapter XII, and he becomes vested with all the powers bestowed on him under that Chapter including the power to file a final report. Once a police officer takes up investigation of a non-cognizable case, after getting due orders, the investigation which he holds becomes an investigation under Chapter XII, and he becomes vested with all the powers bestowed on him under that Chapter including the power to file a final report. Of course, a private person may also move the learned Magistrate and secure order but the investigation can only be carried out by the officer-in-charge of the police station within whose limits the non-cognizable offence was committed. In view of the above, the contention vociferously urged by the learned Counsel cannot be sustained. It is held that no such embargo can be placed and the orders can be passed by the learned Magistrate on the motion of the complainant himself or at the instance of the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station.” 7. In a subsequent decision of this Court reported in [2018 SCC OnLine Ker 13935], Manoj P.John v. State of Kerala & Anr.,, another Single Judge of this Court considered a case, rooted through investigation, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 120(o) of K.P Act along with other offences and in paragraph 7, it was stated as under: “To support the above contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in Kunwar Singh v. State U.P (2007 KHC 6246) and that of this Court in Anto Joseph v. State of Kerala, [ 2016 (3) KHC 832 ]. In Kunwar Singh‘s case (supra), it was held that in the light of above statutory provision, non cognizable offence cannot be investigated by the police without an order passed by the Magistrate. It was held that, there is nothing in the section which disentitle the complainant to approach the court with a prayer to direct the police to conduct investigation. In Anto Joseph‘s case (cited supra), this Court at para 19 had held that, a reading of sub section (2) will reveal that upon information given of the commission of a non-cognizable offence, a police officer can, instead of merely referring the informant to the Magistrate under section 155(1), report the case to the Magistrate under section 155(2), who can, under such circumstances, order such investigation, without first taking cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code. It was also held that a private person may also move the learned Magistrate and secure order, but the investigation can only be carried out by the officer in charge of the jurisdictional police station.” 8. In Abhishek Singh (IAS) v. Amit Meena (IAS) & anr. (supra), placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court while dealing with question of order of sanction provided under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C held that when information was given to an officer-in-charge of the Police Station, with regard to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the book meant for the same and refer the informant to the Magistrate. 9. In Biju v. State of Kerala (supra), this Court held in paragraph 5 as under: “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 S.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 S.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 S.155(2) Cr.P.C. to get the crime registered through police. A conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and (2) of S.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. A conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and (2) of S.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 S.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 S.155(2) Cr.P.C.” 10. In another decision of this Court reported in [ 2022 (7) KHC 584 : 2022 KHC OnLIne 973 : 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 638 : 2022 KER 69289 : 2023 (1) KLJ 118 : ILR 2023 (1) Ker. 222 : 2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1064], Haneefa v. State of Keala, this Court considered the question as to whether investigation into non bailable offence could be commenced without an order of the Magistrate and found that the order of the Magistrate to commence an investigation into a non-cognizable offence is a fundamental requirement and if the Investigating Officer commences investigation without the order of the court, the same would go to the root of the matter. 11. While answering the questions, reference to Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C is necessary and the same are extracted hereunder: “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.” 12. As per Section 154 Cr.P.C, police officer is authorised to investigate when he receives information regarding commission of a cognizable offence. But Section 155 provides the methodology of investigation when non-cognizable case involving non-cognizable offence/s alleged to be committed. As per Section 154 Cr.P.C, police officer is authorised to investigate when he receives information regarding commission of a cognizable offence. But Section 155 provides the methodology of investigation when non-cognizable case involving non-cognizable offence/s alleged to be committed. Section 155(1) says that 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. Further Section 155(2) provides that 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. 13. In the case at hand, a complaint regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence under Section 120(o) of the K.P Act was informed to the police. As per Order No.1934/2020 dated 16.07.2020, Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally, ordered sanction under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C authorising the Sub Inspector of Police to investigate the allegation into the complaint submitted by the complainant. The order doesn’t say, who moved for the order of sanction. But in the first information statement form part of the F.I.R in this crime, it has been stated that on 13.07.2020, the defacto complainant made a complaint to the police officer and the police officer referred the complaint to the Magistrate for getting sanction and in view of the sanction given on 16.07.2020, crime was registered on 16.07.2020. It appears that the complaint was placed before the Magistrate by the police officer seeking sanction and not by the complainant. In this connection, it is profitable to read a decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde [ (2014) 3 SCC 659 : 2013 KHC 4897], where the Apex Court held in paragraph 12 that if the offence complained of is a non-cognizable one, the police officer can either direct the complainant to approach the Magistrate or he may obtain permission of the Magistrate and investigate the offence. In Anto Josephs’s case (supra), this Court meticulously considered similar question and held that once a police officer takes up investigation of a non cognizable offence, after getting due orders, the investigation as authorised by the court and the final report thereof would not become nonest. It was held further that no such embargo could be placed that the orders could be passed by the Magistrate on the motion of the complainant himself or at the instance of the police officer in charge of the police station. But the Magistrate, while granting sanction, must ensure that the police officer in no way indiscriminately use the power to investigate crime in a case. 14. Summarising the legal position, it is held that, when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station regarding commission of a non cognizable offence, he has two options; (1) 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 in this behalf and refer the informant to Magistrate; and (2) the police officer can obtain permission of the Magistrate and investigate the same. Investigation is permissible in cases involving non cognizable offence/s only when the Judicial Magistrate orders investigation. When an ordinary laymen lodges a complaint before a police officer disclosing commission of a non cognizable offence, though he could refer the complainant to the Magistrate, if the police officer himself forward the complaint to the Magistrate and seeks sanction and at the instance of the police officer and acting on the said request, sanction is granted by the Judicial Magistrate by application of mind, merely because the complaint was forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate would not make the order of sanction by the Magistrate illegal so as to declare the investigation and the entire proceedings thereafter at the instance of the police officer as nonest, since Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C does not speak about the person/persons, who are authorised to seek sanction. What is contemplated in Section 155(2) is, investigation in regard to a non-cognizable offence is not permitted without the order of the Magistrate. What is contemplated in Section 155(2) is, investigation in regard to a non-cognizable offence is not permitted without the order of the Magistrate. Therefore, if an order of sanction to investigate a case involving non-cognizable offence/s is issued by the Judicial Magistrate on the application or at the option of the police officer, the order of sanction issued by the Judicial Magistrate is perfectly legal. If so, investigation and final report thereof would stand in the eye of law. Thus the questions posed are answered holding that, (i) it is permissible to sanction order authorising a police officer to investigate a crime involving non-cognizable offence/s by the Judicial Magistrate on the application of a police officer; (ii) it is not mandatory that such order of sanction to be issued by the Magistrate only on the application of the aggrieved person or the complainant; (iii) it is not legally correct to hold that the entire investigation and subsequent events thereof are non-est, when investigation was the outcome of an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 155(2) on the application of a police officer. Thus the decision in Biju v. State of Kerala (supra) rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, ignoring the ratio in Girish Radhakrishnan Varde’s case (supra), is per incuriam and not to be followed; but the ratio in Girish Radhakrishnan Varde’s case (supra) rendered by the Apex Court is the binding precedent. 15. The next point to be decided is; whether the petitioner herein committed offence under Section 120(o) of the K.P Act? Section 120 of the K.P Act provides as under: “120. Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order.— If any person,— xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (o) causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger; xxxx xxxx xxxx" 16. On a perusal of the provision, causing nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger, through any means of communication, is an offence. Here the specific allegation is that after putting a post through WhatsApp, with a question whether this teacher was known to them, along with her photograph it was posted that, she died. 17. Here the specific allegation is that after putting a post through WhatsApp, with a question whether this teacher was known to them, along with her photograph it was posted that, she died. 17. The question poses is, effecting publication or communication stating that a person, who is alive, as dead, would amount to a nuisance to the said person. On reading the definition of the term 'nuisance’, the same means, a person or thing causing inconvenience or annoyance. Otherwise, the same is an act, which is harmful or offensive to the public or a member of it and for which there is a legal remedy. Coming to the term `annoyance’, the same is the feeling or state of being annoyed or irritated. It is difficult to say that once a communication is made so as to make a person a feeling or a state of being irritated, the same is not an annoyance or nuisance for the purpose of Section 120(o) of the K.P Act. If so, the publication effected by the petitioner herein would definitely attract an offence punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, prima facie. 18. Therefore, trial is necessary and in such view of the matter, this Crl.M.C fails and is accordingly dismissed. Registry shall inform this matter to the jurisdictional court for information and for further steps.