- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2237 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SHRI SUBBAIAH K.B., @ MANI S/O LATE BELLIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT: CHERALA SRIMANGALA VILLAGE, KUSHALNAGAR TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 234. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIKERI RURAL P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SMT. GEETHA N.S. W/O LATE VINU KUMAR NANJARAYA PATTANA, KUSHAL NAGAR, KODAGU – 571 234. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, FIR BEARING CR.NO.92/2025 DATED 06.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, CHARGE SHEET DATED 22.07.2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 103(1) OF BNS, 2023, SECTION 30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2025 AND QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.68/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. Quash the complaint dated 06.05.2025 vide Annexure- A, FIR bearing Crime No.92/2025 dated 06.05.2025 vide Annexure-B, Charge Sheet dated 22.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 Section 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, vide Annexure-C and order dated 16.12.2025 and quash proceedings in Sessions Case No.68/2025 vide Annexure-F, pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri. b. Further this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is not issued as it is unnecessary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would restrict his prayer only insofar as discharge application is concerned. The concerned Court rejects the application of the petitioner seeking his discharge from the array of accused on the score that the discharge application is preferred beyond 60 days as obtaining under Sub-section (1) of Section 250 of the BNSS. 4. Facts in brief, germane, is as follows: A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner and the complainant’s husband owing to certain family dispute, it is alleged that the petitioner has shot the complainant’s husband to death and a crime is registered in Crime No.92/2025 for offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, which was Section 302 of the IPC, the earlier regime and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The police conduct investigation and file their final report / charge sheet before the concerned Court. The issue in the lis is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 not with regard to the merit of the criminal proceedings pending before the concerned Court. 5. While the proceedings are on before the concerned Court, the petitioner – accused makes an oral prayer seeking his discharge before the concerned Court. The concerned Court rejects the oral prayer of discharge pleaded by the petitioner and went on to frame charges in terms of the impugned order dated 16.12.2025. The averment in the petition is, the oral prayer seeking discharge comes to the rejected on the score that the time limit prescribed for filing the discharge application, once the charge sheet is filed is 60 days as obtaining under Section 250(1) of the BNSS and therefore, the prayer of discharge cannot be entertained. The order of the concerned Court dated 16.12.2025 reads as follows: “Accused and his learned counsel present. Learned PP present. Learned counsel for the accused submits that there is no prima facie materials and eyewitnesses available on record, hence prayed to discharge the accused. Learned PP submits that since there is no application filed to discharge the accused, on this stage prosecution relied upon 66 witnesses which are cited in charge sheet and there are more than 30 properties have to be identified by the said witnesses during the trial, there are sufficient prima facie materials on record to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 proceed against the accused, hence prayed to reject the prayer of the accused. Heard both side on HBC. The accused has sought discharge without filing an application in the manner contemplated under the provisions of BNSS, 2023. In the absence of the statutory application under relevant provision governing discharge, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction Suo Moto to discharge the accused. Even otherwise on careful consideration of the police report filed U/Sec. 193 of BNSS, the statement of witnesses, properties and the other materials placed on record. In the charge sheet and materials produced there with are considered and accepted at their face value. It is evident that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out, hence this Court is of the opinion that there exist sufficient grounds to proceed against accused and discloses prima facie involvement of the accused which requires adjudication by way of trial. It is also relevant to note that the statutory stage for seeking discharge U/Sec. 250 of BNSS has already elapsed and the matter has reached the stage of consideration of charge, at this stage court is required to proceed in accordance with Sec. 251 of BNSS. Therefore, the oral prayer of the accused seeking discharge at this junction is not maintainable. In view of the above reasons, the prayer of the accused seeking discharge is rejected. As there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused, this court proceeds to frame charge. Call at 3.00 pm. Case called out again at 3.00 pm. The charge framed against the accused. The plea of the accused is recorded. When the contents of the charge - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 read over and explained to the accused in the Kannada language best known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried. Call for properties and for FDT by 12-01-2026. Sd/- I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri” (Emphasis added) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rigor of Section 250 of the BNSS can only be directory and not mandatory as the statute that generates a right in favour of the accused to seek his discharge cannot be restricted, unless it is hopelessly barred by delay. 7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor though would seek to refute the submissions, admits that the discharge is a right of an accused, it cannot be curtailed or restricted and it is left to the Courts to decide in accordance with law. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material and recorded. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the lis, lies in a narrow compass. The issue is with regard to the interpretation of Section 250 of the BNSS. The issue on the lis need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the High Court of Kerala, the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Gujarat have considered the rigor of limitation as obtaining under Section 250 of the BNSS. The High Court of Kerala in the case of SAJITH v. STATE OF KERALA1, holds as follows: “.….. …… …… 7. The materials to be considered at the time of discharge have been stated in Section 227 of Cr. P.C. The same reads as under; 227. Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 8. Section 250(2) is the pari materia provision in the BNSS corresponding to Section 227 of Cr. P.C. Section 250(1) is a new provision introduced in the BNSS. Sections 250(1) and (2) read as under; 250. Discharge - (1) The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232. 12024 SCC OnLine Ker 5166 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 (2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 9. It is discernible that in Section 250 of BNSS, Sub-section (1) provides that the accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under Section 232. Sub-section (1) of Section 250 of BNSS is a new provision which prescribes a period of sixty days to prefer an application by the accused for discharge from the date of committal of the case. In fact, no such time limit fixed in Section 227 of Cr. P.C. But it is noticed that there is lack of clarity or legislative vacuum in the matter of starting point of sixty days in Section 250(1) of BNSS. It is true that in cases where the procedure of committal is necessary, the statutory wordings in Section 250(1) of BNSS regarding the starting point of sixty days, is so clear. But, now a days many Special Courts, viz., Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, etc., proceedings are going before the Special Court during the crime stage itself where committal doesn't arise. In relation to such cases, the starting point to count sixty days period to file discharge petition as provided in Section 250(1) of BNSS lacks clarity or the same is a legislative vacuum. In this context, it is relevant to refer Section 330 of BNSS, a pari materia provision to Section 294 of Cr. P.C. Section 330(1) provides that where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused or the advocate for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document soon after supply of such documents and in no case later than thirty days after such supply. First proviso to Section 330(1) stipulates that the Court may, in its discretion, relax - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 the time limit with reasons to be recorded in writing. The notable distinction is that in Section 330(1) of BNSS, the time limit is preceded by the word ‘shall’ and in Section 250(1) of BNSS, the time limit is preceded by the word ‘may’. Thus, it is perceivable that when the legislature uses the word ‘shall’, the same is mandatory and when the word ‘may’ is used, the same is discretionary. The First proviso to Section 330(1) of BNSS has been engrafted by the legislature and the time limit of thirty days is preceded by the word ‘shall’ makes the provision mandatory. Thus proviso to relax time also was incorporated. In Section 250(1) of BNSS, the legislature used the word ‘may’ which gives discretion to the court to relax the time limit and therefore, no proviso to relax the time limit was engrafted by the legislature. Therefore, even after expiry of sixty days, a petition for discharge can be considered by the court since the time limit is not mandatory and is only directory. If so, the intent of the legislature to avoid filing of discharge petition even at a belated stage in the strict sense could not be achieved. 10. But the crucial aspect is lack of clarity or legislative vacuum with regard to the starting point of sixty days to file discharge petition as per Section 250(1) of BNSS, in sessions cases where no committal is possible. In this connection, it is apropos to refer Section 262(2) of BNSS, deals with discharge of an accused in warrant trial cases which is pari materia to Section 239 of Cr. P.C. Section 262(1) is a new provision equivalent to Section 250(1) of BNSS. As per Section 262(1) of BNSS, the accused in a warrant trial case may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of supply of copies of documents under Section 230. Be it so, in sessions cases where committal doesn't arise, because of the original jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Courts referred herein above, the principle in Section 262(1) of Cr. P.C. can be followed till the legislature makes the starting point in such cases with clarity and certainty, by appropriate amendment to Section 250(1) of BNSS. Thus in such cases, the starting point of sixty days can be counted from the date of supply of copies of documents. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 11. In so far as Section 250(2) of BNSS is concerned, the wordings in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is copied in Section 250(2) of BNSS. Thus, under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. as well as under Section 250(2) of BNSS, in order to discharge an accused, the Judge after considering the materials, should find that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The necessary corollary is that if the Judge finds sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, discharge cannot be considered and plea of discharge must fail. Thus crucial aspect to be considered when considering discharge under Section 227 of Cr. P.C. as well as under Section 250(2) of BNSS indubitably is nothing but as to whether sufficient ground to proceed against the accused is made out from prosecution records. If sufficient materials are available to go for trial, discharge cannot be considered.” The High Court of Kerala in the afore-quoted judgment observes that since the word ‘may’ is used in Section 250(1) of the BNSS, the Court considering the discharge application has the discretion to condone the delay, even after expiry of the limitation period of 60 days. The application for discharge can be considered by the Court, since the time limit is not mandatory and it is only directory. 9.1. The High Court of Gujarat in the case of AVDESH ASHOKBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT2 holds as follows: 2R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1130 of 2025, disposed on 21-07-2025 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 “.….. …… …… 5. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, it appears that as per the provisions of Section 250(1) of the BNSS, 2023, the accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the date of commencement of the case under Section 232. It is an admitted position that so far as the present case is concerned, the committal proceedings have been initiated and the present applicants were in judicial custody and subsequently, they have been released. Further, an application has been preferred before the learned trial Court, stating that while withdrawing the quashing petition, permission was granted by this Court and further, the present applicants are not aware about the time limit, which is provided under Section 250(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for preferring the discharge application within 60 days. I have also perused findings recorded by the learned trial Court wherein, the learned trial Court, considering the provisions of Section 250 of the BNSS, 2023, has observed regarding the object of the said Section and recorded that because of the time limit prescribed, the accused cannot delay the proceedings and as the present applicants are the students of MMBS, they are very well conversant with the law and mainly on this ground, the delay has not been condoned. But, so far as the provisions of Section 250(1) of the BNSS, 2023 are concerned, the language used is that within a period of 60 days from the date of commencement of the committal proceedings so, these are the technical terms. Hence, it cannot be said that the present applicants are very much conversant with the new law. 6. In view of the above, as the discharge is a valuable right of the accused, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are found to be perverse and against the settled principles of law and are required to be interfered with and the present applications are required to be allowed.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 The High Court of Gujarat in the afore-quoted judgment observes that Section 250(1) of the BNSS is a new provision and the language used in Section 250(1) of the BNSS, setting a time limit of 60 days for filing the discharge application is technical in nature. Seeking discharge being a valuable right of the accused, it cannot be denied on technical ground. 9.2. Following the afore-quoted judgments of the High Court of Kerala in SAJITH supra, the High Court of Madras in the case of N. MANISH v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU3 holds as follows: “.….. …… …… 5. In this case, there is no date of committal, as the Sessions Court has taken cognizance under the POCSO Act, which empowers the Sessions Court to take cognizance. That apart, the language employed in Section 250(1) of BNSS is “may”. The Kerala High Court in the above case cited supra has observed as follows; “10. But the crucial aspect is lack of clarity or legislative vacuum with regard to the starting point of sixty days to file discharge petition as per Section 250(1) of BNSS, in sessions cases where no committal is possible. In this connection, it is apropos to refer Section 262(2) of BNSS, deals with discharge of an accused in warrant trial cases which is pari materia to Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Section 262(1) is a new provision equivalent to Section 250(1) of BNSS. As per Section 262(1) of BNSS, the accused in a warrant trial case may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of supply of 3CRL.RC.No.341 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.2526 & 2527 of 2026, disposed on 16-02-2026 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 copies of documents under Section 230. Be it so, in sessions cases where committal doesn’t arise, because of the original jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Courts referred herein above, the principle in Section 262(1) of BNSS can be followed till the legislature makes the starting point in such cases with clarity and certainty, by appropriate amendment to Section 250(1) of BNSS. Thus in such cases, the starting point of sixty days can be counted from the date of supply of copies of documents.” 6.This Court is in respectable agreement with the aforesaid view of the Kerala High Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge in the instant case ought not to have dismissed the discharge petition only on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of 60 days from the date of the first appearance, more so since after obtaining the copies, the petitioner filed the discharge petition on the next hearing itself. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the discharge petition on merits within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 9.3. The High Court of Gujarat again in the case of KARTIKBHAI JASHUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT4 holds as follows: “.….. …… …… (A) Nature of the Sixty-Day Period Under Section 250: 21. The submission of Mr. Mihir Joshi that the sixty-day period merely operates as a trigger mechanism cannot be accepted in its absolute form. The Legislature has consciously introduced a defined time frame to promote expeditious Sessions trials. If the accused were permitted to file discharge applications at any stage without reference 4 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.2627 of 2025, disposed on 05-03-2026 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 to limitation, the statutory prescription would be rendered nugatory. 22. However, it is equally well settled that limitation provisions ordinarily regulate the remedy and not the underlying defence. The right to seek discharge is not extinguished automatically upon expiry of sixty days; rather, the remedy becomes subject to the Court’s discretion in condoning delay upon sufficient cause being shown. Further even if the accused does not prefer an application for discharge the Court is duty bound to apply it’s judicial mind before framing of the charge and if no sufficient material for framing of charge is found the Court has to discharge the accused. 23. Thus, by virtue of Section 250(1) an accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232, if at all he desires to prefer such an application, but, in the considered opinion of the Court, it does not exclude the judicial discretion in appropriate cases or where delay is not attributable to the accused as in the present facts of the case. Thus, it can be held that 60 days period under Section 250(1) of the BNSS regulates the procedure and it does not extinguish the right to seek discharge. It also does not exclude the judicial discretion in appropriate cases where delay is not attributable to the accused while considering the condonation of delay as it reflects prima facie from the facts of the present case. .….. …… …… (C) Whether delay deserves condonation: 30. In the instant case, even the dates mentioned, as referred in the details referred in the tabular form in paragraph 6 above, are taken as it is, the maximum delay, beyond sixty days, is approximately of 140 days (in CrRA Nos. 49/2026 & 226/2026). Considering the fact that certain documents were supplied subsequently and that the right of discharge is a valuable statutory - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 safeguard, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. 31. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting condonation, adverted to merits. As held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra), such approach is impermissible. 32. Criminal jurisprudence must reconcile expeditious trial with fairness. A rigid and technical approach in the present facts would defeat substantial justice. CONCLUSION: 33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds: (i) undefined An accused may prefer an application for discharge within sixty day period ordinarily, but, beyond 60 days, does not extinguish his right to seek discharge where delay is satisfactorily explained. (ii) The committal proceedings are not rendered void merely because certain additional documents were supplied subsequently; however, fairness requires that discharge applications be considered only after complete supply of materials relied upon by the prosecution. (iii) The learned Sessions Judge erred in refusing to condone the delay and in entering into the merits at the stage of condonation.” (Emphasis supplied at each instance) I am in respectful agreement with the afore-quoted judgments of the various High Courts, wherein the High Courts have held that seeking discharge is the right of an accused and the right to seek discharge is not extinguished automatically upon the expiry of the 60 days period as obtaining under - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 Section 250(1) of the BNSS. The High Courts have held that Section 250 of the BNSS is directory and following suit, I hold it to be directory and permit the petitioner to file a discharge application seeking his discharge before the concerned Court. In the event, a discharge application is filed before the concerned Court, notwithstanding the fact that charges are already framed, the concerned Court shall answer the discharge application on its merit and pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed in part. b. The order dated 16.12.2025, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu- Madikeri, in S.C.No.68/2025, insofar as rejecting the oral prayer seeking discharge by the petitioner - accused, stands quashed. c. The petitioner is at liberty to file a discharge application seeking his discharge before the concerned Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18602 CRL.P No. 2237 of 2026 d. In the event, the discharge application is filed before the concerned Court, notwithstanding the fact that charges are already framed, the concerned Court shall answer the discharge application on its merit and pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 66