- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18155 WP No. 29862 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29862 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. SUNIL STEPHEN D'SOUZA, S/O LIGORI D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-49, TABAIL HOUSE, NELIKATTE POST, MOODUBELLE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI - 576 120, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. GLEN ALVA, S/O MR. RAYMOND ALVA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-50, TABAIL HOUSEM, NELLIKATTE POST, MOODUBELLE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI - 576 120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ANNAPURNA DEVELOPERS HAVING OFFICE AT ANNAPURNA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, FOUR ROAD JUNCTION, KATTINGERI, MOODUBELLE, KAPU TALUK, UDUPI - 576 120. PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, 1. SRI. C.H. CHANDRAKANTH RAO AND 2. SMT. SUMANGALA C. RAO. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18155 WP No. 29862 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN IA NO. 1/2023 FILED UNDER SECTION 156 (3) OF THE CR.PC IN PCR NO. 150/2023 BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF 3RD ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI APPENDED VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, dismissed the said complaint, declining to refer it for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court observed that since the jurisdictional police and the Superintendent of Police had not taken any action on the complaint, the matter was not fit to be referred to the Station House Officer of the jurisdictional police station for investigation. 2. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the correct legal position while passing the impugned order. In terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to refer a complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation, provided he is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18155 WP No. 29862 of 2024 satisfied, upon application of judicial mind, that the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The non-action or inaction of the jurisdictional police or the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. is not, in itself, a legal impediment for the Magistrate to invoke the power vested in him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The Magistrate was required to independently evaluate the contents of the complaint and determine whether the allegations therein prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Upon such satisfaction, it is open to the Magistrate to refer the matter for police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether prior attempts by the complainant to set the criminal law in motion through the police were unsuccessful. The impugned order, which summarily refuses to refer the complaint solely on the ground of earlier police inaction, is therefore contrary to the settled legal position and is unsustainable in law. 4. Even assuming that the Magistrate was not inclined to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he was nevertheless under a legal duty to proceed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. That is to say, upon receipt of a private complaint, the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 200 Cr.P.C., directed the complainant to record a sworn statement, and thereafter proceeded in accordance with law—either by issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or by dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., if he was not satisfied about the sufficiency - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18155 WP No. 29862 of 2024 of grounds for proceeding. A blanket rejection of the complaint at the threshold, without following the statutory process, vitiates the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is arbitrary, contrary to law, and is liable to be set aside. ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 13.04.2023 passed on I.A. 1/2023 filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in PCR No.150/2023 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi District, Udupi are hereby set aside. iii. The Learned Magistrate to consider the application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT: BHK