- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10715 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. ASHNUTH CHOPRA, S/O ANAND CHOPRA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF AUTOMIN CAR SERVICES, BDA INDUSTRIAL, PEENYA, BENGALURU. R/AT NO. SIDDHA LOVE LOCK, 11A LOVE LOCK PLACE, BALLYGUNGE, CIRCUS AVENUE, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL – 700019. 2. RAZEEN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DGM OPERATIONS OF AUTOMIN CAR SERVICES, BDA INDUSTRIAL, PEENYA, BENGALURU. R/AT NO. 176, PHANSOP, KOTAWADA, RATNAGIRI, MAHARASHTRA – 415617. 3. PARAS KIRAN, C/O N B KIRAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, AREA MANAGER AT AUTOMIN CAR SERVICES, BDA INDUSTRIAL, PEENYA, BENGALURU. R/AT 159, 4TH B CROSS, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 JAKKUR LAYOUT, JAKKUR, BENGALURU – 560064. 4. LATHISH GOWDA N.V, S/O VIJAY KUMAR R V, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, AT AUTOMIN CAR SERVICES, BDA INDUSTRIAL, PEENYA, BENGALURU. R/AT 1ST FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, JC NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH - 560086 (NAMES ARE MENTIONED AS PER PCR) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI DHIRAJ A K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR P.S, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. AISHWARYA, W/O RAKESH R, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.395, D/E, 12TH CROSS, VINAYAK LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. TANUJA V, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2025 PASSED IN PCR NO.8900/2025 BY THE LEARNED VI ACJM, BENGALURU DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND CONSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.260/2025 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 329(3), 60(b), 318(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF BNS BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACJM, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4 are before the Court calling in question an order of reference dated 21.06.2025, for conduct of investigation, passed by the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in P.C.R.No.8900/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 60(b), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, which has then become a crime in Crime No.260/2025 for the aforesaid offences. 2. Heard Sri Dhiraj A.K., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Tanuja V., learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 3. A co-ordinate bench of this Court grants an interim order of stay on 06.08.2025. The interim order reads as follows: “The petitioner – accused is primarily aggrieved by the action of the learned Magistrate in referring the matter to the jurisdictional Police Station to conduct investigation and submit report in violation of the mandate provided under Sections 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Ambakar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , which squarely addresses the issue involved in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the mandate under sub- section (3) of Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must be scrupulously followed by the learned Magistrate before initiating any steps to secure the presence of an individual either for the purposes of investigation or to conduct an inquiry suo motu. In the present case, a prima-facie procedural lapse is evident from the records, constituting a fundamental flaw in the process. In view of the same, further investigation in Crime No.260/2025 requires to be stayed. Accordingly, further investigation in Crime No.260/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 60(b), 318(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed off accordingly. Learned Additional SPP is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 The interim order is granted primarily on the score that there is violation of the mandate of the statute as obtaining under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant would also submit that the Court has erred in not following the mandate of the statute. 5. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of OM PRAKASH AMBAKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 has held as follows: “…. … …. 28. However, before we part with the matter, we deem it necessary to discuss the changes brought to the scheme of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”). 29. Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 of the BNSS is in parimateria with sub-section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. 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 the BNSS is identical to Section 156(2) of the Cr. P.C. Section 175(3) of the BNSS empowers - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 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 parimateria with Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. However, unlike Section 156(3)of the Cr. P.C., any Magistrate, before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) of the 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) of the BNSS; b. Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary; and c. Consider the submissions made by the police officer. 30. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 of the BNSS is a new addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable cases when compared with the scheme previously existing in Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. 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 of the 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 31. A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. 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 an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3). 32. The introduction of these changes by the legislature can be attributed to the judicial evolution of Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. undertaken by a number of decisions of this Court. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., 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) of the Cr. P.C. 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) of the Cr. P.C. were being made in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR. It was further observed 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). The relevant observations made by the Court are reproduced hereinbelow: “27. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the Bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above the law. But, the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution covered under the Sarfaesi Act, invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and circumspection has to be adhered to. 28. Issuing a direction stating “as per the application” to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It also encourages unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like Respondent 3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions on their knees. As the factual exposition would reveal, Respondent 3 had prosecuted the earlier authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is interesting to note that during the tenure of Appellant 1, who is presently occupying the position of Vice-President, neither was the loan taken, nor was the default made, nor was any action under the SARFAESI Act taken. However, the action under the SARFAESI Act was taken on the second time at the instance of the present Appellant 1. We are only stating about the devilish design of Respondent 3 to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. As we have noticed, he has been able to do such adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will not be taken to task because an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a simple application to the court for issue of a direction to the investigating agency. We have been apprised that a carbon copy of a document is filed to show the compliance with Section 154(3), indicating it has been sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned. 29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari, [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” (Emphasis supplied) 33. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Babu Venkatesh v. The State Of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639, the observations made in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) were referred to and it was held as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 “24. This Court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. 25. This Court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations. The Court has noted that, applications under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons. 26. This Court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., there have to be applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr. P.C. This Court emphasises the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Inasmuch as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) 34. In light of the judicial interpretation and evolution of Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. by various decisions of this Court as discussed above, it becomes clear that the changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the 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 the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives. 35. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer 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) In the light of the mandate of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, the procedure under Section 175(3) of the BNSS must be followed prior to issuance of directions for the purpose of investigation. The issue in the lis stands resolved and the criminal petition deserves to succeed albeit, in part and the order of reference stands obliterated. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed in-part. b. The impugned order dated 21.06.2025, passed by the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in P.C.R.No.8900/2025, referring the matter for investigation and the consequent registration of the crime in Crime No.260/2025, stand quashed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31636 CRL.P No. 10715 of 2025 c. The concerned Court shall follow the mandate of law as obtaining under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and the observations made by the Apex Court and of this Court in the course of the order. I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43