- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17406 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA, R/AT NO. 548, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086. PETITIONER NO.1 NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT. 2. SRI. L. VINAY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. LAKSHMAN, R/AT NO. 548, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION, SHESHADRIPURAM SUB DIVISION, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR. B. A. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. ANJANAPPA, R/AT NO. 30, 2ND CROSS, HARIKUMAR GARDEN, MANJUNATHNAGAR, BAGALAGUNTE, BENGALURU-560 073. ALSO AT: MEMBERSHIP NO. 3439, ADDRESS NO. 178, CENTRAL SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR, PLATFORM ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR B.A., - RESPONDENT No.2 (PARTY IN PERSON)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2025 PASSED IN PCR NO. 15091/2024 BY THE LEARNED FIRST ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 83/2025 REGISTERED BY THE R1 SHESHADRIPURA, POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE -B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.83 of 2025 registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sampath A., appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Krishna Kumar B.A., appearing as party-in-person/respondent No.2. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: Respondent No.2, who is the complainant, alleges that petitioner No.1-Developer developing the lands and forming sites, allotted the sites in favour of the Society to which respondent No.2 is a member. The further allegation is that petitioner No.1, through his son-petitioner No.2, sold Site No.120, which belongs to the Society, to a third party. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 On this score, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and referred the matter for investigation under Section 173 of the BNSS to the jurisdictional Police to conduct investigation and submit the report. 4. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as follows: “Case called. The learned counsel for the complainant is present. Heard arguments, it is the allegation of the complainant that the accused persons have created the and fabricated the documents and allotted the sides to third parties with an intention to cheat the complainant. In this regard the complainant approached the jurisdictional police as well as the commissioner of police. But as per the submission of the counsel for the complainant, they have not taken any steps. Hence the complainant approached this Court with this complainant. When I gone through the case papers, it is noticed that the complainant is made scientific allegation against the accused persons about creation and fabrication of the documents and about cheating. At this Preliminary stage it is not possible to come to conclusion. The investigation is necessary. Hence the matter is referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation U/Sec.175 of BNSS. The complainant is hereby directed to furnish the copy of the complainant and other documents. Await report by 12.03.2025.” The Magistrate in terms of the afore-quoted order refers the matter for investigation under Section 175 of the BNSS. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 5. The interpretation of Section 175 of the BNSS need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the Apex Court in the case of OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, has held as follows: "…. …. …. 31. Section 175 BNSS corresponds to Section 156CrPC. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 BNSS is in pari materia with Section 156(1)CrPC except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the case so requires. Sub-section (2) of Section 175 BNSS is identical to Section 156(2)CrPC. Section 175(3) BNSS empowers any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 to order investigation in accordance with Section 175(1) and to this extent is in pari materia with Section 156(3)CrPC. 32. However, unlike Section 156(3)CrPC, any Magistrate, before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, is required to: (a) Consider the application, supported by an affidavit, made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS; (b) Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary; and (c) Consider the submissions made by the police officer. 33. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 BNSS is a new addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 cases when compared with the scheme previously existing in Section 156CrPC. It provides an additional safeguard to a public servant against whom an accusation of committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of discharge of his official duty is made. The provision stipulates that any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 BNSS may order investigation against a public servant upon receiving a complaint arising in course of the discharge of his official duty, only after complying with the following procedure: (a) Receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the accused public servant; and (b) Considering the assertions made by the accused public servant as regards the situation that led to the occurrence of the alleged incident. 34. A comparison of Section 175(3) BNSS with Section 156(3)CrPC indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows: (a) First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). (b) Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. (c) Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3). 35. The introduction of these changes by the legislature can be attributed to the judicial evolution of Section 156CrPC undertaken by a number of decisions of this Court. In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] , this Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3)CrPC, the applicant must necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3)CrPC must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3)CrPC were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR. 36. It was further observed in Priyanka Srivastava [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] that the requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). …. …. …. 39. In light of the judicial interpretation and evolution of Section 156(3)CrPC by various decisions of this Court as discussed above, it becomes clear that the changes introduced by Section 175(3) BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions aimed at curbing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives. 40. 40. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the police officer concerned before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3) BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the police officer concerned also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment holds that the Magistrate is mandated to hear the jurisdictional Police before the matter is referred to investigation as per Section 175(3) of the BNSS. 6. A perusal at the order of the Magistrate would nowhere indicate that the rigour of Section 175(3) of the BNSS is followed as the jurisdictional Police is not heard before referring the matter to investigation. In the light of the said procedural aberration, the inevitable conclusion would be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 obliteration of the crime that is registered pursuant to the order of reference. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) The criminal petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders after following the procedure as obtaining under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and regulate its procedure thereafter. (ii) As a consequence, the impugned crime in Crime No. 83/2025 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, stands quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0