ORDER : S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “ Hence, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4210/2024 pending before the Hon’ble (ACMM-42) XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, Triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka), for the offence punishable U/Sec. 127-A of RP Act, as against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as Accused No.2, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint against the petitioner on 06.05.2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 127-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short “the said Act of 1951”), which is a non-cognizable offence requiring necessary permission/approval from the learned Magistrate before conducting investigation. 4. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Sri. K.C.m Puttasiddasetty Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.6396/2022 dated 09.06.2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: WHEREFORE, the Petitioner named above most humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order, quashing the entire proceedings in C.C.No.313/2019 (in Crime No.61/2019 of Kollegala Town P.S., Chamarajanagara) registered for the offence punishable u/s. 127A of the Representation of People Act, pending on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, in the interest of Justice." 2. The allegation against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act'). Section 127A of the Act reads as follows: "Section 127A. Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc.— [Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc. (1) No person shall print or publish or cause to be printed or published, any election pamphlet or poster which does not bear on its fact the names and addresses of the printer and the publisher thereof. Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc.— [Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc. (1) No person shall print or publish or cause to be printed or published, any election pamphlet or poster which does not bear on its fact the names and addresses of the printer and the publisher thereof. (2) No person shall print or cause to be printed any election pamphlet or poster— (a) unless a declaration as to the identity of the publisher thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom he is personally known, is delivered by him to the printer in duplicate; and (b) unless, within a reasonable time after the printing of the document, one copy of the declaration is sent by the printer, together with one copy of the document. (i) where it is printed in the capital of the State, to the Chief Electoral Officer; and (ii) in any other case, to the district magistrate of the district in which it is printed. (3) For the purposes of this section,— (a) any process for multiplying copies of a document, other than copying it by hand, shall be deemed to be printing and the expression “printer” shall be construed accordingly; and (b) “election pamphlet or poster” means any printed pamphlet, hand-bill or other document distributed for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or group of candidates or any placard or poster having reference to an election, but does not include any hand-bill, placard or poster merely announcing the date, time, place and other particulars of an election meeting or routine instructions to election agents or workers. (4) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.]" 3. It is not in dispute that Section 127A of the Act is a non-cognizable offence, and for a non-cognizable offence, if a crime has to be registered, the permission of the learned Magistrate would be imperative. The permission in the case at hand is sought by way of a requisition by the Station House Officer. The requisition is endorsed by a signature of the learned Magistrate it is neither perused, permitted, nor permitted to register an FIR. The permission in the case at hand is sought by way of a requisition by the Station House Officer. The requisition is endorsed by a signature of the learned Magistrate it is neither perused, permitted, nor permitted to register an FIR. Such bald, vague, and callous signatures being put on the requisitions have become the subject matter of several proceedings before this Court. This Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2019 reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2708 : ILR 2020 Kar 630, wherein, it has held as follows: "2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- One Mr. H.N. Shirahatti, PSI Kagwad police station filed a complaint before the SHO of Kagwad Police station stating that on 23.09.2019 at about 18.15 hours, when he was in the police station he received credible information, that within the limits of Mole Village near Laxmi Temple, some persons are playing gambling called “Andar Baahar” for their personal benefit, contrary to law and illegally. Thereafter, he informed the same to Dy. S.P. Athani and CPI Athani, telephonically and as per their instructions and direction, himself along with staff proceeded to the said spot. They reached the spot at 19.30 hours and they stood little away and watched and found that certain persons were saying Yakka means Rs.100/- etc. and they conducted raid and caught hold 13 persons and recovered cash of Rs.10,250/-. On the basis of the complaint, the SHO registered Crime No 123/2019 for 4 offence under Section 87 of K.P. Act. Subsequently, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P.Act. 3. The petitioner has stated that the complaint is misconceived, and the alleged offence is non-cognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Therefore, the police have no authority to investigate the crime. It is further submitted that the police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. When the officer in-charge of the police station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is further submitted that the police have not complied with mandatory requirement of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. When the officer in-charge of the police station received information regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall enter the same in a book to be maintained by the said officer and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further, Subsection (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. mandates that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. The petitioner has further stated that there is no iota of evidence that the above said mandatory requirement are complied with. There is no speaking order by the jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the police to take up investigation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 in the charge sheet are liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the orders of this Court passed in several cases in support of his submissions. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the jurisdictional Magistrate has permitted the concerned police to take up investigation and therefore, there is compliance of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under Section 87 of the K.P. Act is a non- cognizable offence. When the report is received by the SHO of Police Station in respect of commission of non- cognizable offence, the SHO has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr. P.C. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of Cr. P.C., which deal with the procedure for investigation and for taking cognizance of non-cognizable offence reads as follows:— “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.” 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and that of this Court as also the fact that what the learned Magistrate permits is only by way of a signature and not any word beyond that. The proceedings cannot be sustained because the registration of the FIR on such permission being granted. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER 1) Criminal petition is allowed. 2) Proceedings in C.C.No.313/2019 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, registered for the offence punishable under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1950.” 5. So also, In the case of Kiran Nanasab Jatti @ Basavakiran Nanasab Jatti and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.100515/2022 dated 23.02.2022 , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “The petitioner calls in question the proceedings in C.C.No.474/2019, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, registered for the offence punishable under Section 171A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Heard Shri Avinash M. Angadi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Chigari, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. 3. The incident which happens on 3.11.2018 results in registration of the offence punishable under section 171A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, both of which are non cognizable. For a non cognizable offence, registration of the complaint cannot result in registration of the FIR unless the Jurisdictional Magistrate permits for conduct of such investigation for registration of the FIR in terms of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For a non cognizable offence, registration of the complaint cannot result in registration of the FIR unless the Jurisdictional Magistrate permits for conduct of such investigation for registration of the FIR in terms of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the learned counsel would in unison submit that both the issues stand covered by the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100197/2014, disposed off on 3.2.2014, wherein this Court considering identical offence has held as follows: 3. On careful perusal of the petition averments as well as after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the factual matrix disclose that the person by name Shrihari Basavapattanna Ramakrishnarao submitted a F.I.R. to the police making allegation against the petitioner herein that on 02.05.2013 at about 12.45 p.m. in the after noon, the petitioner has used the Car bearing registration No.KA-48/M-4053 for the purpose of election canvassing without prior permission of the Election Commission, during the Legislative Assembly election in Karnataka proposed to be held on 05.05.2013. The police on being intercepted the vehicle, seized the said vehicle and registered a case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 171H of IPC and also under Section 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the above said two offences are non-cognizable offences. Therefore, under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the police have no right or jurisdiction to investigate the matter, without prior permission of the Magistrate, who has got jurisdiction to try those offences. Therefore, the entire charge sheet filed by the police is vitiated by serious incurable defects and procedural irregularities. 5. On perusal of the FIR and also the charge sheet, it does not disclose that there was any cognizable offence was disclosed, so as to enable the police to investigate both the cognizable and non- cognizable offences together and to file the charge sheet. Therefore, he contends that the entire charge sheet papers and on the basis of which the criminal case is registered to be quashed. Xxx xxxx xxx xxx 8. Therefore, he contends that the entire charge sheet papers and on the basis of which the criminal case is registered to be quashed. Xxx xxxx xxx xxx 8. On perusal of the above said two provisions, none of the offences are punishable with imprisonment for more than 3 months Section 171H of Indian Penal Code is punishable with a fine, which may extend to Rs.5,00/-, wherein under Section 133 of Representation of People Act, prescribes punishment which may extend to three months and also with fine. Now coming to the provision of first schedule of Cr.P.C., Section 171(H) of Indian Penal Code is covered under the said provision which is declared as non-cognizable and bailable offence, and triable by the Magistrate of the First Class. Like wise classification of offence against other laws in Cr.P.C., it also describes, if any offence under any other law, if punishable for less than three years or with fine which shall be considered as noncognizable, bailable and triable by the Magistrate of First Class. 9. On perusal of the above said provisions, it is abundantly clear that the offence registered against the petitioner under Section 171H of IPC and Section 133 of Representation of the People Act, are non-cognizable in nature. Now, coming to Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: “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” 10. Particularly, Section 155(2) mandates the police concerned that such police officer shall investigate the non cognizable offence with the permission of the Magistrate only. This Section describes that no Police Officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case for trial. 11. The provision in sub Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., for asking permission of the Court to investigate a non-cognizable offence is mandatory in nature. Therefore, the investigation of non-cognizable offence by the police without prior permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal. Even mere accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognizance of the offence does not validate the proceeding. Even subsequent permission by the Magistrate also cannot cure the illegality. As could be seen from Section 460 of Cr.P.C. these defects of non taking permission before investigating a non cognizable offence is also not curable. Even mere accepting the charge sheet by the Magistrate and taking the cognizance of the offence does not validate the proceeding. Even subsequent permission by the Magistrate also cannot cure the illegality. As could be seen from Section 460 of Cr.P.C. these defects of non taking permission before investigating a non cognizable offence is also not curable. Though the charge sheet is filed after due investigation without prior permission of the Court and that the Magistrate has accepted the charge sheet and taken the cognizance, it does not mean to show permission is granted by the Magistrate to investigate such non cognizable offence. Therefore, investigation into the non- cognizable offence without written order of the Magistrate is strictly contrary to the provision of this Section. 12. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the investigation done by the police in this case is without jurisdiction and based on such invalid investigation report, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is also illegal. Secondly, the entire proceeding before the learned Magistrate is vitiated by serious incurable defects. (Emphasis supplied.) 4. In the light of the decision of this Court (supra), the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.474/2019, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, stands quashed, qua the petitioners.” 6. Further, In the case of Muskan Fathima and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.1582/2023 dated 28.02.2023 , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “Learned High Court Government Pleader is directs to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 to 9 and 12 to 14 seeking to quash criminal proceedings in C.C No.11405/2019 pending on he file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 127A of Representation of People's Act and Section 171B of IPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged against the petitioners is not cognizable one. The police obtained permission of Magistrate, who without proper application of mind endorsed in the application as 'permitted', which is against the judgment of this Court. It is not proper permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner is not sustainable. The police obtained permission of Magistrate, who without proper application of mind endorsed in the application as 'permitted', which is against the judgment of this Court. It is not proper permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner is not sustainable. The learned counsel submits that accused No.1 has already approached this Court and got quashed the criminal proceedings and FIR in W.P. No.27649/2019. Later, came to know that charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, once again, approached this Court and got quashed criminal proceedings in Criminal Petition No.781/2020 on 31.01.2020. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents has seriously objected the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records, especially, the order of the Magistrate granting permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the requisition dated 16.04.2019, the police after registering NCR, made requisition to Magistrate for according permission. The Magistrate, without application of mind, has endorsed by affixing seal and signature. This Court in catena of cases has held that the grant of permission, without application of mind by the Magistrate is not sustainable and has quashed the proceedings for non compliance of Section155(2) of Cr.P.C. 7. This Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs. The State of Karnataka through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi in Criminal Petition No.101997/2019 dated 10.12.2019 , has issued guidelines at paragraph No.20 of the judgment which is as under: "20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. (ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case. iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition. iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he / she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence. v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant." 8. That apart the informant shall has to approach the Magistrate for permission, which his not done. Accused No.1 has already got quashed the proceedings. Therefore, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is not sustainable. 9. Therefore, criminal petition is allowed. Accordingly, criminal proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 9 and 12 to 14 in C.C. No.11405/2019 on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.” 7. The aforesaid judgments also would indicate that the impugned alleged offence punishable under Section 127-A of the said act of 1951, have not been made out and consequently, continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4210/2024 pending before the XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (Special Court for Trial of Cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, Triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka), are hereby quashed.