Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations

"Object of Section 155(2) Is Judicial Supervision, Not Restriction of Access to Justice", In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural contours of investigation in non-cognizable offences, the Allahabad High Court held that a Magistrate can validly grant permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on an application moved by the complainant or aggrieved person.

Justice Rajeev Bharti dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order granting permission for investigation, the charge-sheet, and the summoning order. The Court ruled that Section 155(2) restricts the police from investigating without Magistrate’s order, but does not prohibit a complainant from approaching the Magistrate for such permission.

The judgment harmonises earlier divergent views of co-ordinate Benches and reinforces the principle that procedural provisions must advance justice rather than defeat legitimate prosecution on technical grounds.

An NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) was lodged on 26 March 2014 under Sections 352, 504 and 427 IPC at Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

Since the offences were non-cognizable, the complainant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to enable police investigation. The Magistrate granted permission on 28 March 2014. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 10 June 2015, and cognizance was taken on 21 November 2015.

The applicant challenged the entire proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that permission under Section 155(2) could only be sought by the police and not by the complainant.

The principal issue framed by the Court was:

"Whether permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for investigation of a non-cognizable case can be granted by the Magistrate on an application moved by the complainant or aggrieved person?"

Applicant’s Contention: Responsibility Lies With Police

The applicant relied upon Navin Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P., wherein it was observed:

"So the responsibility lies with the police to obtain the order and not on the complainant."

It was argued that since the application under Section 155(2) was moved by the complainant and not by the police officer, the permission was illegal, thereby vitiating the entire investigation and subsequent proceedings.

Reliance was also placed on the Karnataka High Court decision in Vijesh Pillai v. State of Karnataka, which laid down procedural guidelines under the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice.

Court’s Analysis: Plain Language of Section 155(2)

Justice Rajeev Bharti reproduced Section 155 Cr.P.C. and emphasised that sub-section (2) states:

"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."

The Court observed that the provision restricts the power of the police, but does not specify who may approach the Magistrate.

The judgment clarified that Navin Chandra Pandey did not hold that a complainant is barred from moving an application. Rather, it merely recognised that police cannot investigate without Magistrate’s order.

In contrast, a later co-ordinate Bench in Brij Lal Bhar v. State of U.P. had held:

"Therefore, the order may be passed by the magistrate concerned on the application of police officer concerned or on the application of the first informant also."

The High Court noted that Section 155(2) uses the phrase “without order” and not “without application by police,” indicating that the essential requirement is the Magistrate’s judicial order, not the identity of the applicant.

Conflict of Co-ordinate Bench Decisions: Judicial Discipline

Acknowledging divergence between co-ordinate Benches, the Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, which underscore the importance of certainty and consistency in law.

The Court held that in case of divergence between Benches of equal strength, the later decision should ordinarily be followed unless the matter is referred to a larger Bench.

Accordingly, the Court followed Brij Lal Bhar, being the later decision that examined the statutory scheme in greater detail.

Karnataka Rules Not Applicable in Uttar Pradesh

The applicant’s reliance on Vijesh Pillai was rejected. The Court observed that the Karnataka High Court’s directions were based on Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, which have no application in Uttar Pradesh.

In Uttar Pradesh, the only statutory requirement under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and pass an order permitting investigation. There is no equivalent procedural mandate as in Karnataka.

Interpretation of Procedural Provisions: Advancing Justice

The Court referred to Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., wherein the Supreme Court recognised the wide powers of Magistrates to ensure proper investigation.

Justice Bharti observed:

"The object of the provision of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is to ensure judicial supervision over investigation, not to restrict access to justice."

The Court emphasised that procedural provisions must be interpreted to advance justice and not frustrate legitimate prosecution on hyper-technical grounds.

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only where there is lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, or miscarriage of justice.

In the present case, the challenge was purely technical. Once the Magistrate had applied judicial mind and granted permission, the investigation could not be declared illegal merely because the application was moved by the complainant.

No jurisdictional error or prejudice was demonstrated.

The High Court held that permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. may be granted by the Magistrate on an application moved by the complainant or any aggrieved person. The investigation, charge-sheet and summoning order were not vitiated.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the interim order, if any, was vacated.

The ruling settles the procedural position in Uttar Pradesh that Section 155(2) is a safeguard ensuring judicial oversight, not a procedural hurdle barring complainants from approaching the Magistrate in non-cognizable cases.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026