- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 134 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O SRI. POOVAPA BUSINESS BY PROFESSION R/AT NO.22/2 HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD NEAR ARIKATTE, SOUNDARYA NAGARA SIDEDAHALLI NAGARASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SCRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 4. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION WING (CCB), BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 5. SMT. DEVIKA W/O RAMESH MOOLYA AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.1000 'CHAITRA', HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD HAVANUR LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073. 6. SHANKARA GOWDA JOGAREDDY S/O MUDDANNAGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.1170, 3RD MAIN ROAD 9TH CROSS, MAHESHWARI NAGAR T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 057. 7. MR. SATHAPPA S/O CHANDRAKANT HUGUR AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.34-14/05, 2ND FLOOR 5TH CROSS, HANUMAN LAYOUT HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD CHIKKA BANAVARA POST BENGALURU-560 090. 8. MR. NITIN GOWDA S/O HONNAPPA GOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT 2ND FLOOR, KASABA HOBLI T. BEGUR VILLAGE AND POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562 123. 9. MR. S.C. MUDDA HANUME GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKA GANGAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 AGE MAJOR R/AT SIDEDHAHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. G S RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ADARSH M LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 24.10.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025, 24.10.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/79/2025, 29.10.2025 BEARING CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025, 20.12.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025 AND 24.12.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/79/2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES- A TO E AND THEREBY QUASH THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025 AND BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/79/2025 VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed questioning the impugned notices bearing Nos.CCB/Complaint/78/2025 dated 24.10.2025, CCB/Complaint/79/2025 dated 24.10.2025, CCB/Complaint/78/2025 dated 29.10.2025, CCB/Complaint/78/2025 dated 20.12.2025 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 CCB/Complaint/79/2025 dated 24.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 4, vide Annexures "A to E" and consequently to quash the initiation of proceedings bearing No. CCB/Complaint/78/25 and bearing No.CCB/Complaint/79/2025 vide Annexures "A to E". 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent No.9 and also learned AGA. Perused records. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: Respondent No.5 has lodged three separate complaints before respondent No.3 – the Commissioner of Police, alleging that she is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.10/2A (corresponding to old Sy.No.10/2), measuring 5.5 acres. It is further contended that her husband, Ramesh Moolya, is the owner of land measuring 6 acres and is also the owner of lands bearing old Sy.No.10/1, presently Sy.No.10/1A measuring 4.15 acres, and Sy.No.9 measuring 1.12 acres, all situated at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 Shidedahalli Village. According to the complainant, layouts were formed in the aforesaid lands and several sites were sold, while 63 sites of different dimensions were retained. 4. It is further alleged that one Sunitha, the owner of land bearing Sy.No.22/2 measuring 5.5 acres, formed a residential layout to an extent of about 2 acres. Similarly, one Narayan Salyan, stated to be the absolute owner of land bearing old Sy.No.10/2, presently Sy.No.10/2A measuring 5.10 acres, also formed a layout on the said land and sold sites therein. The complainant alleges that the said Sunitha, without her knowledge, has illegally sold about 41 sites which allegedly form part of the sites retained by the complainant, by falsely describing them as having been carved out of Sy.No.22/2, with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the complainant. 5. Acting upon the aforesaid three complaints, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned notices to the petitioner. These notices are assailed before this Court on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 the ground that the dispute projected in the complaints is essentially civil in nature and that the impugned notices have been issued without jurisdiction, particularly when no crime has been registered against the petitioner. 6. This Court, by order dated 20.01.2026, directed the State to place on record an explanation as to how the impugned notices could have been issued in purported exercise of powers under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS, 2023”). 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the writ papers, the following point arises for consideration: “Whether respondent No.4 has the jurisdiction to issue a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him even prior to the registration of a crime indicating the commission of a cognizable offence?” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 8. Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS, 2023”) delineates the procedure to be followed by the jurisdictional police officer upon receipt of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Ordinarily, the scheme of the provision requires the police officer to register a First Information Report and thereafter proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that no crime has been registered against him and, therefore, respondent No.4 lacks jurisdiction either to initiate any form of investigation or to summon the petitioner for inquiry. According to the petitioner, in the absence of a registered FIR, the impugned notices are without authority of law. 9. This contention, however, requires to be examined in the light of sub-section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023. The said provision carves out an exception to the normal rule requiring immediate registration of a FIR. Section 173(3) of BNSS, 2023 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 contemplates that where the information received by the police officer relates to the commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more but less than seven years, the police officer is not invariably bound to straightaway register an FIR. Instead, the statute permits the officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists warranting registration of a crime. Thus, the provision statutorily recognizes the power of the police Officer to verify the veracity of the information received before embarking upon the formal process of investigation. 10. The object underlying Section 173(3) of BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that criminal law is not set in motion mechanically in matters where the allegations require preliminary verification, particularly in disputes where the factual matrix may disclose civil overtones or where the allegations necessitate initial scrutiny before the drastic step of registering a crime is taken. Therefore, the statute - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 itself authorizes the jurisdictional police officer to collect basic information, verify the allegations, and interact with the concerned persons before deciding whether a cognizable offence is made out requiring registration of an FIR. 11. In the present case, the material placed before this Court indicates that respondent No.4 has issued notices to the petitioner pursuant to complaints received from respondent No.5. The issuance of such notices is evidently for the purpose of eliciting information and verifying the allegations made in the complaints. Though the impugned notices do not expressly refer to the statutory provision under which they have been issued, the nature of the action undertaken by respondent No.4 clearly falls within the ambit of Section 173(3) of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the police officer to undertake a preliminary inquiry prior to registration of a crime in cases falling within the parameters prescribed therein. Consequently, the mere fact that an FIR has not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 yet been registered cannot, by itself, be construed as rendering the notices without jurisdiction. 12. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the police authorities may misuse the power of issuing such notices and subject him to harassment cannot be lightly brushed aside. At the same time, it is equally necessary to bear in mind that the statutory scheme under Section 173(3) of the BNSS, 2023, contemplates a limited and structured inquiry for the purpose of determining whether the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence warranting registration of a case. Therefore, a balance must be maintained between the statutory powers of the investigating agency and the legitimate concerns of the citizen. 13. In that view of the matter, the interests of justice would be adequately safeguarded by directing respondent No.4 to confine the inquiry strictly to the scope of Section 173(3) of the BNSS, 2023, namely, to ascertain - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 whether the complaints disclose the commission of a cognizable offence requiring registration of a crime. The inquiry shall be limited to collection of relevant information and verification of the allegations contained in the complaints, and shall not assume the character of a full- fledged investigation unless a crime is formally registered in accordance with law. 14. Correspondingly, the petitioner, being a person from whom information is sought in the course of such preliminary inquiry, is obligated to appear before the jurisdictional police officer as required and to extend necessary co-operation by furnishing the information sought through the impugned notices. Such co-operation would enable the police officer to arrive at a proper decision as to whether the complaints disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting further action in accordance with law. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 15. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands disposed of. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.4 as and when called upon and extend full cooperation in the preliminary inquiry by furnishing such information and documents as may be sought by respondent No.4 in terms of Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (iii) It is made clear that the inquiry undertaken by respondent No.4 shall be confined to the scope of Section 173(3) of the BNSS, 2023, namely, to ascertain whether the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence warranting registration of a crime. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14518 WP No. 134 of 2026 (iv) Until such time the jurisdictional police officer forms an opinion that the material collected discloses the commission of a cognizable offence requiring registration of a crime in accordance with law, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner merely under the guise of securing information in the course of the preliminary inquiry. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14