- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25693 CRL.RP No. 2000 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2000 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ANNERVAZ K.M., S/O K.K. MOHAMED RASHEED AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT, TOWER 6, PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY IVRI ROAD, NEXT TO CRPF YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SINIMOL P.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. FAHAD KHALID S/O V.A. KHALID AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.4052 PRESTIGE LAKE RIDGE APARTMENT YADALAM NAGAR ROAD VEERANJANEYA LAYOUT , 2ND STAGE JAYANAGAR HOUSING SOCIETY LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGAURU-560 062. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SYED JAFFER MOHIYUDDIN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25693 CRL.RP No. 2000 of 2025 ORDER DATED 24.10.2025 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.15/2025, IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, RESTORE THE TRIAL COURTS WELL-REASONED ORDER DATED 24.10.2025, RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent through video conferencing. 2. The challenge is made before this Court questioning the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.15/2025. 3. Having perused the reasoning of the Trial Court in paragraph No.9, the Trial Court has discussed with regard to scope of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance and not decided to proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court also taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in paragraph No.10 in Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 628, wherein the Apex Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25693 CRL.RP No. 2000 of 2025 discussed with regard to referring the matter to concerned Police to investigate the same or to take cognizance. Considering the material on record, the Revisional Court set aside the order of the Magistrate by allowing the revision petition and requested the Magistrate to take appropriate decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without being influenced by any observation made in the order. 4. Having taken note of the request made by the Revisional Court, the order is very clear to consider the matter in accordance with law by giving an opportunity and when such opportunity is given invoking Sections 438 and 440 of BNSS which contemplates that before taking cognizance, an opportunity has to be given, the same is in accordance with law. When such being the case, I do not find any error on the part of the Revisional Court in passing such an order. 5. However, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that only with an intention to protract the proceedings, the respondent has approached the revisional jurisdiction. Considering the said submission, it is appropriate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25693 CRL.RP No. 2000 of 2025 to direct the Magistrate to take decision as directed by the Revisional Court. Hence, the Magistrate is directed to pre-pone the case from 18.09.2026 to 22.06.2026 and both the counsels are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 22.06.2026 and from the said date, the Magistrate is directed to consider the matter within 45 days. Both counsels are directed to assist the Trial Court to take the decision within the time stipulated. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40