ORDER : The accused in C.C.No.216/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The prosecution case is that on 20.03.2012 at about 07:30 p.m, the petitioner inflicted voluntary hurt upon the second respondent by hitting upon his face and kicking upon his abdomen. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 2. Upon getting information from the General Hospital, Ernakulam that the second respondent is undergoing treatment there due to the injuries sustained in a physical assault, the S.I of Police, Central Police Station came to the said hospital and recorded the statement of the second respondent. Finding that the offence alleged is non-cognizable, the S.I of Police, Central Police Station moved application before the learned Magistrate seeking permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C for registering a crime and commencing investigation. As per order dated 24.03.2012, the learned Magistrate accorded permission to the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station to conduct investigation after registering a case in connection with the injury sustained by the second respondent in a physical assault. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the prosecution initiated against him is vitiated due to the non-competence of the S.I of Police, Central Police Station to seek permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C to register the case and proceed with the investigation. For the above reason, the petitioner seeks to quash the case pending against him before the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.216/2019, in connection with the incident said to have happened on 20.03.2012. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent. 5. For the above reason, the petitioner seeks to quash the case pending against him before the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.216/2019, in connection with the incident said to have happened on 20.03.2012. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proper course which the S.I of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam ought to have adopted upon getting information about the alleged physical assault committed by the petitioner upon the second respondent, was to enter the substance of the information in a book kept in the Police Station and to refer the second respondent to the Magistrate as provided under sub Section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. It is thus argued that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C to register a case and to investigate the matter, is bad in the eyes of law. In support of the above argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Biju V.G. (Dr.) v. State of Kerala and Another [ 2020 (6) KLT 184 ] 6. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, Section 155 Cr.P.C is 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. (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.” 7. (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.” 7. Sub Section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C requires the Officer-in-charge of a police station getting information about the commission of a non-cognizable offence within his station limits to enter the substance of information in the relevant book kept in the police station in such form as prescribed by the State Government and to refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C puts the legal embargo upon police officer against investigating non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or to commit the case for trial. It is not stated anywhere in the said Section that the order of the Magistrate mentioned in sub Section (2) shall be the order passed consequent to the proceedings initiated when the informant approaches the Magistrate as referred by the Officer-in-charge of the police station in accordance with sub Section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. In other words, it is not possible to say that sub Section (2) is the continuation of sub Section (1) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. 8. It is the well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. A statute has to be interpreted without doing any violence to the language used therein. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation since it has no power to legislate. While interpreting the provisions of a statute, the Court can neither add nor subtract anything from it. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment under the garb of interpreting the provision. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of interpretation of statutes, it is not possible to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate in the case on hand, under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, is bad in the eye of law. 9. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of interpretation of statutes, it is not possible to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate in the case on hand, under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, is bad in the eye of law. 9. In State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde [ (2014) 3 SCC 659 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with cognizance of offence by the Magistrates, held as follows in paragraph No.12 of the said decision: “12. S.190(1) of the CrPC contains the provision for cognizance of offences by the Magistrates and it provides three ways by which such cognizance can be taken which are reproduced hereunder: (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report in writing of such facts--that is, facts constituting the offence-- made by any Police Officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer or upon the Magistrate’s own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. An examination of these provisions makes it clear that when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, a case is instituted in the Magistrate’s Court and such a case is one instituted on a complaint. Again, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of any offence upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police Officer it is a case instituted in the Magistrate’s Court on a police report. The scheme underlying CrPC clearly reveals that anyone who wants to give information of an offence may either approach the Magistrate or the officer in charge of a Police Station. 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. Similarly anyone can approach the Magistrate with a complaint and even if the offence disclosed is a serious one, the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the offence and initiate proceedings. It is open to the Magistrate but not obligatory upon him to direct investigation by police. Thus two agencies have been set up for taking offences to the Court.” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is open to the Magistrate but not obligatory upon him to direct investigation by police. Thus two agencies have been set up for taking offences to the Court.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In the landmark decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] it has been observed in paragraph No.34 as follows: “34. In this connection, it may be noted that though a police officer cannot investigate a non cognizable offence on his own as in the case of cognizable offence, he can investigate a non cognizable offence under the order of a Magistrate having power to try such non cognizable case or commit the same for trial within the terms under S.155 (2) of the Code but subject to S.155(3) of the Code. Further, under the newly introduced sub-section (4) to S.155, where a case relates to two offences to which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non cognizable and, therefore, under such circumstances the police officers can investigate such offences with the same powers as he has while investigating a cognizable offence.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the scope of granting permission to Police Officer by the Magistrate concerned under sub Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C, upon an application moved for the same, has been upheld. 12. In Anto Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2016 (3) KHC 832 ] a learned Single Judge of this Court had the occasion to deal with the same issue regarding the legal sanctity of granting permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C by the Magistrate upon an application moved by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. After dealing elaborately on the various aspects relating to interpretation of statutes and relevant case laws on the point, it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that there is absolutely no legal embargo in seeking permission by invoking Section 155(2) Cr.P.C by the Officer-in-charge of a police station, and that orders can be passed by the Magistrate under the aforesaid Section on the motion of the complainant himself, or at the instance of the Officer-in-charge of the police station. The same view has been expressed by another learned Single Judge of this Court recently in Raveendran V.K @ Sibi v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 22]. 13. In the light of the consistent view of this Court on this point, as guided by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal, and State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (supra), the contrary view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Biju.V.G. v. State of Kerala (supra), without referring to the aforesaid decisions, can only be termed as per incuriam. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the legal sanctity of the prosecution initiated in C.C.No.216/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, cannot be accepted. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.