- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7868 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. THARA PEETHAMBARAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY 2. DR. KRISHNARJUN PEETHAMBARAM, M.D., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY, BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.45, 9TH CROSS, PARIMALA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, R Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 RAJAGOPALA NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI P.HARI SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY, RESIDENT OF NO.SM3, 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP A/W., SRI CHAMAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI BHARGAV K. S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 24.03.2025 PASSED IN PCR.NO.5636/2024 AND QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.157/2024 REGISTERED AT RAJAGOPALA NAGARA P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 506, 416, 419, 420, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ACJM, BANGALORE CITY. I.A.NO.1/2025 FOR STAY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court, yet again calling in question an order passed by the concerned Court directing re/further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submit a report by 23.05.2025. 2. Heard Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Raghavendra K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP along with Sri.Chamappa Erappa, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri.Bhargav K.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner No.1 is the mother of petitioner No.2 and the complainant. Therefore, the rift is between the members of the family. A private complaint comes to be registered invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 416, 419, 420, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was referred to investigation which then becomes a crime in Crime No.157/2024. This is called in question by the petitioners herein before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5891/2024 on the score that the order of reference under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. suffered from non-application of mind. This Court on hearing the parties, set-aside the order of reference of the concerned Court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and remitted the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. The result of remittance is the fulcrum of the challenge in the subject petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the concerned Court committed a procedural illegality in referring the matter for re/further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and while incorporating Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court appears to have got itself confused as to what should be followed, BNSS or Cr.P.C. He would contend that the order directing re-investigation can only be the power - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 of the Constitutional Courts and not the learned Magistrate and for a further investigation which power is available to the concerned Court, it is only after the submission of a report. On these scores, the learned Senior Counsel would seek quashment of the proceedings including the FIR so registered. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Complainant would contend that the power to direct further investigation is available to the concerned Court even without submission of a report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. He would contend that the concerned Court has recorded the Sworn Statement of the complainant and passed necessary orders which cannot be said to be suffering from procedural illegality. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. In-furtherance whereof, the issues that falls for consideration is: (1) For a complaint that is registered prior to 01.07.2024 i.e., the date on which the BNSS comes into force, the procedure followed earlier should be continued under Cr.P.C. or under BNSS ? (2) Whether the order of the concerned Court directing re/further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is tenable in law or otherwise ? 9. Issue No.1: For a complaint that is registered prior to 01.07.2024 i.e., the date on which the BNSS comes into force, the procedure followed earlier should be continued under Cr.P.C. or under BNSS ? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 The petitioners were at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No.5891 of 2024 challenging the order of reference by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC on a private complaint registered by the complainant. The order of the learned Magistrate was dated 30th April, 2024 which was long before BNSS coming into force. Therefore, certain dates assume significance. A private complaint invoking Section 200 of the CrPC comes to be registered on 29-04-2024. On the next day i.e., on 30-04-2024 the learned Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate, the jurisdictional Police register a crime in Crime No.157 of 2024 on 6-05-2024. Investigation commenced and progressed to some extent. Challenging the order of reference, Criminal Petition No.5891 of 2024 was filed, which this Court remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court. Therefore, the issue now would be what is the procedure that to be is followed by the concerned Court, in continuing its proceedings. Whether the provisions of BNSS should be followed, or the provisions of CrPC, as the investigation had commenced prior to BNSS coming into force. The answer lies in Section 531 of BNSS It reads as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 “531. Repeal and savings.— (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal— (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come into force; (b) all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms provided by rules, local jurisdictions defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments, not being appointments as Special Magistrates, made under the said Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Sanhita, shall be deemed, respectively, to have been published, issued, conferred, specified, defined, passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita; (c) any sanction accorded or consent given under the said Code in pursuance of which no proceeding was commenced under that Code, shall be deemed to have been accorded or given under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita and proceedings may be commenced under this Sanhita in pursuance of such sanction or consent. (3) Where the period specified for an application or other proceeding under the said Code had expired on or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 before the commencement of this Sanhita, nothing in this Sanhita shall be construed as enabling any such application to be made or proceeding to be commenced under this Sanhita by reason only of the fact that a longer period therefor is specified by this Sanhita or provisions are made in this Sanhita for the extension of time.” Sub-section (1) of Section 531 of BNSS repeals CrPC. Sub-section (2) of Section 531 holds that immediately before the date of BNSS coming into force, if there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then such appeal, application, trial or investigation shall be disposed, continued, held or made as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC, as if BNSS had not come into force. In the light of Section 531 (2)(a) which clearly observed that any investigation even pending before the commencement of BNSS i.e., before 1-07-2024 shall be governed by the CrPC. Therefore, there cannot be a scintilla of doubt that for the subject proceedings, the procedure as obtaining under the CrPC should be adopted, followed and continued to take the proceedings to its logical conclusion. 10. Section 531 of BNSS has been interpreted by different High Courts when posed with an identical situation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 The High Court of Allahabad in DEEPUv.STATE OF U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 4289 has held as follows: "14. From the above-discussed case, the following legal position is culled out: (i) that amended/repealed procedural law will be applicable retrospectively unless otherwise provided in the new Act itself; (ii) liability or right accrued under the repealed Act will not be affected and same will continue as if the repealing Act did not come into force; (iii) procedure of investigation, trial, revision and appeal as well as a forum of remedy is part of procedural law, and the same will be applicable retrospectively unless otherwise provided in the new procedural law; (iv) Litigants have no vested right in procedural law but has vested right in substantive law with accrued right or liability. The statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities, shall be construed to be prospective in nature unless otherwise provided. 15. From the above analysis it is clear that if any offence is committed prior to the enforcement of new criminal laws, then if the F.I.R. is registered after the enforcement of new criminal laws, then the same will be registered under the provision of I.P.C. in view of the Article 20 of the Constitution of India, but the procedure for the investigation will be as per the BNSS. Similarly, in case the offence is committed after the enforcement of new criminal laws and thereafter the F.I.R. is registered, then the investigation would be conducted as per the BNSS. However, in case the offence is committed prior to the enforcement of new criminal laws, and F.I.R. is also registered prior to the enforcement of new criminal laws then the procedure of investigation would be as per the Cr. P.C. in view of Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS. Therefore, the procedure of investigation provided by the circular - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 dated 7.4.2024 of the Police Technical Services Headquarter, U.P. is absolutely correct. 16. On the basis of above analysis, this Court is also summarising the law regarding effect of repealing the IPC and Cr. P.C. by BNS and BNSS respectively and same is being mentioned as below: (i) If an FIR is registered on or after 1.7.2024 for the offence committed prior to 1.7.2024, then FIR would be registered under the provisions of IPC but the investigation will continue as per BNSS. (ii) In the pending investigation on 01.07.2024 (on the date of commencement of New Criminal Laws), investigation will continue as per the Cr. P.C. till the cognizance is taken on the police report and if any direction is made for further investigation by the competent Court then same will continue as per the Cr. P.C.; (iii) The cognizance on the pending investigation on or after 01.07.2024 would be taken as per the BNSS and all the subsequent proceeding including enquiry, trial or appeal would be conducted as per the procedure of BNSS. (iv) Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS saved only pending investigation, trial, appeal, application and enquiry, therefore, if any trial, appeal, revision or application is commenced after 01.07.2024, the same will be proceeded as per the procedure of BNSS. (v) The pending trial on 01.07.2024, if concluded on or after 01.07.2024 then appeal or revision against the judgment passed in such a trial will be as per the BNSS. However, if any application is filed in appeal, which was pending on 01.07.2024 then the procedure of Cr. P.C. will apply. (vi) If the criminal proceeding or chargesheet is challenged before the High Court on or after 01.07.2024, where the investigation was conducted as per Cr. P.C. then same will be filed u/s 528 of BNSS not u/s 482 Cr. P.C." - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 The High Court of Rajasthan in KRISHAN JOSHIv.STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2042 has held as follows: "5. We are concerned here only with the savings clause contained in sub section 531(2)(a), ibid. A perusal thereof clearly reflect that, not only the pending trial/appeal, but even an inquiry and/or investigation, which is underway prior to coming into force of the BNSS, shall have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Cr. P.C., 1973 and not under the BNSS, 2023. 6. The reasons for the same are not far too seek. What has to be been seen simply is the date of registration of the FIR and the law as applicable as on the date of such registration. Trite it may sound, but settled position is that, the moment an FIR is registered under section 154 of the Cr. P.C., criminal, investigative/administrative machinery is set in motion under Chapter XII thereof. Thus, if an FIR is registered prior to 01.07.2023 under the Cr. P.C., it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of section 531(2)(a) of BNSS. The entire subsequent investigation procedure and even the trial procedure qua such an FIR shall then be governed by Cr. P.C. and not BNSS. 6.1. Let us analyze it deeper by dwelling further on it. Legislative processes often involve simultaneous twin actions i.e. not only the creation of new law, but also the repeal of existing one at the same time. Section 531 of the new legislative code, for short referred to as “BNSS,” envisages the repeal of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and it also incorporates crucial savings provision which is so essential to cater to the transitional period between the old code and the new code. No doubt, section 531 of BNSS effectively removes old code from - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 the statute books, however, at the same time it is a repeal subject to the savings clause and not a repeal in toto. A certain transitional period has been provided, and rightly so. For, a forthwith repeal in totality shall lead to legal uncertainties, particularly, concerning- ongoing legal proceedings that commenced under the old law. To mitigate such uncertainties, saving provision has been introduced. Saving clause ensures that the repeal of an old law does not adversely affect any legal proceedings or rights that were established under the old code. The saving provision facilitates a smooth transition from the old legal framework to the new one. It provides a buffer period during which the judicial and legal systems can adjust to the changes introduced by the new Sanhita. 6.2. The saving clause in Section 531(2) is critical for ensuring legal continuity and stability. II stipulates that notwithstanding the repeal, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending before the new Sanhita comes into force will continue to be governed by the old Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This shall essentially mean that all ongoing proceedings, which have already been kicked in under the old code, will not be disrupted by the new code i.e. BNSS. This is vital for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor denied due to procedural changes, should an affected party feel so. Rights of the accused in an FIR and/or under trials and/or convicts under appeal and the legal expectations formed under the old law have been and are required to be protected. Applicability of old code on pending matters prevents any retrospective adverse effects that might arise from the sudden application of new legal provisions to ongoing cases. 6.3. Furthermore, vide saving clause, the litigants already involved in legal proceedings initiated under the old code have been thus assured that their cases will be resolved under the legal framework they were initially engaged with. Saving clause thus ensures that the repeal of old code does not create a legal vacuum, leaving ongoing proceedings in limbo and, to avoid such a - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 scenario the old legal process ought to continue seamlessly. 6.4. Speaking of judiciary, vide the savings clause which envisages dual approach i.e. ongoing cases to be disposed of under the old law and the ones registered after 01.07.2023 under the new code, even the courts can manage their workload more efficiently. Judges and lawyers familiar with the old code can continue their work without needing to adapt immediately to the new provisions. Section 531 of the new Sanhita, while repealing of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, simultaneously thus safeguards ongoing legal proceedings through its savings clause. 7. No doubt, procedural laws can be applied retrospectively, subject of course to the judicial review, but in view of Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS herein, it is amply clear that all the pending matters prior to coming into force of BNSS, 2023, as specifically mentioned in Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS shall continue to be governed by the old Code i.e. Cr. P.C., 1973. Therefore, the petition in hand also to has to be treated under Section 482 Cr. P.C." (Emphasis supplied) If the facts, link in the chain of events and dates are considered on the bedrock of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, and interpretation by the High Courts of Allahabad and Rajasthan, to which I am in respectful agreement of, the unmistakable inference would be blatant ignorance of law by the concerned Court, as the Court appears to have obfuscated itself and wants to follow both the CrPC and BNSS. It has, therefore brewed, what I have no hesitation in calling concoction of illegality on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 unpalatable stew that neither law permits nor justice digest. It is the first ground on which the order impugned is rendered unsustainable. Therefore, the issue is answered holding that the proceedings in terms of Section 531(2)(a) which arise prior to 1-07-2024 would be governed only by CrPC and not BNSS. The proceedings must be taken forward by the concerned Court only in terms of CrPC. 10. Issue No.2: Whether the order of the concerned Court directing re/further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is tenable in law or otherwise ? The challenge is laid by the petitioners to the order of reference, under Section 156(3) of CrPC before this Court in Criminal Petition No.5891/2024. This Court quashed the order of reference and remitted the matter back to the hands of the Court by the following order: "7. In that light, the only issue that falls for consideration at the hands of this Court at this juncture is, “whether the order of the learned Magistrate, referring the matter for investigation under section 156(3) suffers from want of application of mind”. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 8. The order so made on the private complaint so registered under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., dated 30.04.2024, reads as follows: “ORDER The complainant has filed this private complaint U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to refer the complaint to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.504, 506, 416, 419, 420 of the IPC. The complainant has filed affidavit and documents along with his complaint. Heard the counsel for the complainant. I have perused the contents of the complaint, the affidavit and other documents placed before me. The complainant has narrated the steps taken by him before approaching this Court. It appears that complainant has lodged the complaint at Rajagopalnagar Police Station. But it appears that the police have not received / not taken action the complaint. The complainant has complied with Sec.154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. But the police have not taken any action based on his complaint. Therefore, it makes clear that the complainant has complied with the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava &other VS State of U.P. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case to refer to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR and to conduct the investigation for the alleged offences. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Office is direct the investigation and to file Final Report. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 The PSI of jurisdictional police is hereby directed to conduct the investigation. Await Final Report. Call on: 10.06.2024.” (Emphasis added) The learned Magistrate records that the complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant has filed an affidavit along with the documents. The learned Magistrate, finding that it is in compliance of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA & OTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. refers the matter for investigation. The order of reference is what shocks the Court, it reads, ‘Office is direct the investigation and to file Final Report’. Apart from gross syntax errors. It does not bear even a semblance of application of mind. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRITI AGARWALLA V. STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “14. The statutory scheme under the Act of 1989, through Act No. 27 of 2018, has undergone a few major changes. Section 18A is one of the sections that has a bearing on the procedure followed by the Trial Court and needs to be appreciated. Section 18A of the Act of 1989 came into effect on 20.08.2018. In the instant appeal, as already noticed, the alleged complaints were made between 29.04.2018 and 02.08.2018, and refer to the allegation made two years prior to the complaints. Respondent No. 2, by moving the application under section 156(3) of the CrPC invoked the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and therefore, the procedure and requirements of section 156(3) are attracted in examining the correctness of the order impugned. 12024SCC OnLine SC 973 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 14.1 Let us examine the discretion and jurisdiction of a Magistrate on the application filed under section 156(3), CrPC. Whether the Magistrate has to act and accept mechanically a complaint presented to him and direct registration of FIR or in his discretion, upon the examination of allegations order preliminary enquiry then proceed in the matter. The answer to the question centres around section 156(3) of the CrPC. The position in law is fairly well-settled and we advert to a few decisions on the point. In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh14, this Court observed that the Magistrate can look into the veracity of an application under section 156(3) because ordering inquiry requires the application of judicial mind and affidavit by the applicant and has held thus: “30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) of the CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the Ld. Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever, only to harass certain persons…” 14.2 In Khalid Khan v. State of U.P.15, dealing with a converse situation, the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad observed that when the application under section 156(3) of the CrPC discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, then the concerned Magistrate must direct the registration of the FIR. Under the provisions of section 156(3) of the CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry before ordering the registration of the FIR in cases where no cognizable offence is made out. Referring to Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the High Court highlighted the importance of verifying the veracity of allegations levelled in a complaint to keep in check the filing of applications under section 156(3) as a tool to harass people. Thus, from the above judgments, it is crystal clear when the application under - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 section 156(3) of CrPC discloses a cognizable offence, then it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to direct registration of the FIR, which is investigated by the investigation agency, in accordance with the law. Conversely, when the information received does not prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for inquiry, in that case, the preliminary inquiry may be conducted in order to ascertain whether the offence complained is cognizable or not. The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information received reveals a cognizable offence or not. 14.3 We do not propose to multiply citations on the point and succinctly stated, the Magistrate, under section 156(3) of the CrPC, asks himself a question : whether the complaint, as presented, makes out a case for directing the registration of an FIR or calls for inquiry or report from the jurisdictional police station. The inner and outer limit of the exercise of this jurisdiction is on a case-to-case basis dependent on the complaint, nature of allegations and offence set out by such a complaint. Therefore, it is fairly well-settled and axiomatic by the decisions rendered under section 156(3) of the CrPC that the Magistrate does not act mechanically and exercises his discretion judiciously by applying mind to the circumstances complained of and the offence alleged against the accused for taking one or the other step. The case on hand principally concerns deciding whether the discretion is invalidly exercised by the Magistrate while ordering a report from the SHO.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that the Magistrate while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. should apply his judicious mind, take note of the fact whether the complaint that is presented makes out a case for directing investigation and only then direct such investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Mechanical reference under Section 156(3), without - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 application of mind, would render the very action unsustainable. 9. If the order impugned is considered on the touchstone of the elucidation of law by the Apex Court supra, it would fall foul of the same. The learned Magistrate while referring the matter for investigation should bear in mind that, once the reference under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., is made it results in registration of a FIR automatically by the jurisdictional police to investigate into the matter. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate who would refer the matter for investigation should bear application of mind. The order quoted hereinabove is cryptic and bald as it is bereft of reasons, which leads to its unsustainability and a direction to the learned Magistrate to redo the exercise from the stage of referring the matter for investigation. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The Criminal Petition is allowed. b. The order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed. c. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to redo the exercise and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. d. The consequential registration of FIR in Crime No.157/2024, registered by the Rajagopala Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, stands obliterated." 11. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, in accordance with - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 law. The order is again brought before this Court raising a challenge of gross procedural aberration. The order reads as follows: "5. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he is one of the Directors of M/s E-Parisaraa Pvt. Ltd. Company, which was founded by his father M.Parthasarathy Peethambaram during 2004. That his father is holding 33.92% of the company shares. The complainant was made the Director of company in 2011, in which he holds 23.06% shares. That the accused No.1 and 2 are his mother and younger brother respectively and also the shareholders of company E-Parisaraa. That the said Peethambaram Parthasarathy passed away on 12-06- 2023 and after that the accused No.2 ransacked his home and took into custody all of his original documents including company documents, share certificate, company’s locker keys, digital signatures, phone, laptop used by his late father. That the accused No.2 has been filing GST return by using the OTP generated on the mobile phone pertaining to his late father. That it would also cause for government authorities to take cognizance of the above fact and impose penalties to the company for having continued to use the OTPs generated on mobile phone number linked to a deceased person’s Aadhaar Card and using the digital signature of deceased person. That he requested accused No.2 not to impersonate the deceased on many occasions, but the accused persons abused and warned him of dire consequences. Further the accused persons in order to cheat the company, shareholders and complainant, by colluding together used the digital signature of the founder/director and submitted number of forms relating to company i.e., GST, even after his death. Thereby the accused persons committed the alleged offences. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 6. As already noted, this court had referred the matter for investigation to concerned police. In the meantime, the accused persons preferred above said Criminal Petition No.5891/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in which the orders of this court dated 30-04-2024 was quashed, remitted back the matter to redo the exercise and pass necessary orders in accordance with law and finally ordered that the consequential registration of FIR in Crime No.157/2024 registered by Rajagopala Nagar P.S., Bengaluru stands obliterated. As such this court had posted the matter for sworn statement of complainant. 7. In the sworn statement, the complainant has almost re-iterated the complaint averments and got marked plethora of documents on his behalf. The material on record would prima-facie disclose allegations against accused persons regarding usage of digital signature of the deceased, so also there are allegations regarding non-disclosure of the money transactions in the accounts to the shareholders. 8. Section 175(3) of BNSS reads as follows - Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 9. Here Section 175(3) of BNSS empowers the court/Magistrate for ordering an investigation in the matter by the police officer after considering the application supported by an Affidavit and after making any such inquiry and submission made in this regard by the police officer. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 10. This court has issued notice to the I.O./P.S.I. of Rajagopal Nagar P.S. for recording submission. In response to the notice, the I.O. appeared and filed his written submissions that on the complaint made by the complainant he registered N.C.R. Later, on the direction of court, he registered F.I.R. Meanwhile he also received the copy of complaint lodged by the complainant from the officer of Commissioner of Police, but at that time he had already registered the F.I.R. on the direction of court. Further he submitted that he has registered the complaint as N.C.R. on the averments made in the complaint, but he registered the F.I.R. on the complaint referred by the court, which discloses the cognizable offence. He has also submitted that during the course of investigation, he received the order copy from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka passed in Crl. Petition No.5891 of 2024, wherein the F.I.R. registered in the present Crime No.157/2024 is quashed and he awaited orders from the court. 11. As such, this court is of the considered view that in this case before passing any orders, there should be a detail inquiry by police. The concerned police or the I.O. who had taken the investigation has to be directed to conduct further investigation as contemplated under law. Further the investigation is required to ascertain the truthfulness in respect of misuse of digital signature by impersonation. Court cannot conduct investigation and also not able to hold detail inquiry with respect to digital offences. Under the facts and circumstances of case, this court is of the considered opinion that the further investigation is absolutely necessary in this case. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 The matter is referred to the S.H.O. of Rajagopal Nagar P.S. for re or further investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and submit report by 23- 05-2025. Sd/- 24/3/25 XXXI Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru City" (Emphasis added) 12. Every paragraph of the reasons so rendered in the order, is contradictory to each other. The concerned Court appears to have generated obfuscation as to whether BNSS should be followed or Cr.P.C. should be followed. It mixes the two and passes an order absolutely bizarre. The order referring the matter for 're' or 'further' investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is on the face of it illegal. The concerned Court appears to have blissfully ignored the basic tenet of law. The Court has freely used the words ‘re’ or ‘further’ investigation, interchangeably, oblivious to their profound distinction, in criminal jurisprudence. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 13. Further investigation is a power that is available at the hands of the concerned Court, to order with two conditions. One would be when a charge sheet under Section 173(2) is filed before the concerned Court; not being satisfied with it, a further investigation under Section 173(8) can be ordered by the learned Magistrate or the concerned Court. But, there must be something before the Court as result of investigation by the jurisdictional Police in compliance with the order of reference under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The next condition would be that the concerned Court does not have power to order further investigation at the hands of a different agency as that is the power of the constitutional Courts. 14. Therefore, without there being anything before the concerned Court as a result of investigation, further investigation could not have been ordered. That is not the purport of the provisions of the CrPC. The second is, the power to order re-investigation is undoubtedly with the constitutional Courts and not with the concerned Court. The power of the concerned Court stops at further investigation at the hands of the same investigating agency. The power to command - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 re-investigation or de novo investigation or transfer of investigation to any other agency, is the exclusive prerogative of the constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or it is inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. Therefore, the very usage of words ‘re’ or ‘further’ investigation in the order impugned is sans countenance. 15. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in PEETHAMBARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 553 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: "13. This Court in Vinay Tyagi (supra) gave detailed consideration to the powers under Section 173 and Section 482 of CrPC. “43.At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even “reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation” are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with great circumspection. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 *** *** *** *** 45. The power to order/direct “reinvestigation” or “de novo” investigation falls in the domain of higher courts, that too in exceptional cases. If one examines the provisions of the Code, there is no specific provision for cancellation of the reports, except that the investigating agency can file a closure report (where according to the investigating agency, no offence is made out). Even such a report is subject to acceptance by the learned Magistrate who, in his wisdom, may or may not accept such a report. For valid reasons, the court may, by declining to accept such a report, direct “further investigation”, or even on the basis of the record of the case and the documents annexed thereto, summon the accused.” 14. Per contra, the State would contend that only further investigation upon the order of the District Police Chief was conducted. In respect of further investigation, in Vinay Tyagi (supra) this Court has observed: 22. “Further investigation” is where the investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the executive. It is the continuation of previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and described as “further investigation”. The scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to bring the true facts before the court even if they are discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described as “supplementary report”. “Supplementary report” would be the correct expression as the subsequent investigation is meant and intended to supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence incidental thereto.In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a “reinvestigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” investigation. - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 15.This distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation being that the former is a continuation of the previous investigation and is done on the basis of discovery of fresh material, whereas the latter can only be done when there is a definite order of the court to that effect which must states the reason as to why the previous investigation is incapable of being acted upon. 16.In Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar[(2006) 4 SCC 359], it was observed that upon submission of a report in terms of Section 173(2)(i) the concerned Magistrate has three courses of action available before him: (i) Accept the report and proceed further (ii) Disagree with the report and drop the proceedings. (iii) Direct further investigation under Section 156 (3) which is the power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence, and require them to make a further report. 17. In Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI[(2001) 7 SCC 536] it was observed that although the section is not specific in respect of the Court's power to order further investigation, the power of the police can be set into motion upon the order of such a court. It was further observed that this order should not be interfered with even in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of a higher court. 18.The above two cases make it amply clear that a magistrate has the power to order further investigation and the cases referred to earlier make clear that fresh investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation fall into the purview of the jurisdiction of a higher court." (Emphasis supplied) - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 The Apex Court in STATE OF T.N.v.HEMENDHRA REDDY, (2023) 16 SCC 779, has held as follows: "What is the meaning of the term “Further Investigation”? 52. In Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1059] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 349, para 17) further investigation within the meaning of provision of Section 173(8)CrPC is additional; more; or supplemental. “Further investigation”, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. What are the alternatives before a Magistrate when a “Final Report” is filed? 53.Wherever a final report forwarded by the investigating officer to a Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i)CrPC is placed before him, several situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person and persons, and in such a case the Magistrate may either: (1) accept the report and take cognizance of offence and issue process, (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may take cognizance on the basis of report/material submitted by the investigating officer, (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require police to make a report as per Section 173(8)CrPC. (4) may treat the protest complaint as a complaint, and proceed under Sections 200 and 202CrPC. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 What is the prime consideration for “Further Investigation”? 54. As observed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat [Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1603] , the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. The hands of investigating agency for further investigation should not be tied down on the ground of mere delay. In other words, the mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. Difference between “Further Investigation” and “Reinvestigation” 55. There is no doubt that “further investigation” and “reinvestigation” stand altogether on a different footing. In Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar [Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, (2008) 5 SCC 413 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 631] , this Court has explained the fine distinction between the two relying on its earlier decision in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala [K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1291] . We quote paras 7 and 8 as under : (Ramachandran case [Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, (2008) 5 SCC 413 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 631] , SCC p. 415) “7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub- section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala [K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1291] . It was, inter alia, observed as follows : (SCC p. 237, para 24) - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 ‘24. … The dictionary meaning of “further” (when used as an adjective) is “additional; more; supplemental”. “Further” investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a “further” report or reports—and not fresh report or reports—regarding the “further” evidence obtained during such investigation.’ 8. In view of the position of law as indicated above, the directions of the High Court for reinvestigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. We, therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required under Section 173(8) of the Code. The same can be done by CB CID as directed by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the preceding analysis and the judgment of the Apex Court, the act of the learned Magistrate which directs re-investigation or further investigation, is on the face of it illegal, as there was no report under Section 173(2) filed before the learned Magistrate for the learned Magistrate to order further investigation, as obtaining under Section 173(8), of the CrPC. In that light, the issue is answered holding that the order of the learned Magistrate directing 're' or 'further' investigation as illegal. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 16. Both the issues being answered in tandem, the inevitable result is obliteration of the order impugned in the subject petition, and the matter to be remitted back to the concerned Court, now to follow the law and regulate its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [i] The Criminal Petition is allowed in part. [ii] The impugned order stands quashed. [iii] The sequential action of registration of the crime, if any, also stands obliterated. [iv] The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court, to pass necessary orders strictly in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21190 CRL.P No. 7868 of 2025 [v] All other contentions except the one considered in the course of this order shall remain open to both the parties to urge at the appropriate time, before the appropriate fora, at the appropriate stage. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT:SS