MANJUNATH vs STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025
®


CNR: KAHC010224062025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4866 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. MANJUNATH
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

2. BASAVARAJU
S/O MADAIAH.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3. JYOTHI
W/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THIMMANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
PIN 571434

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARATH J M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION
REP BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BULDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. LEELAVATHI
W/O SATHISH K.S
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


TH
R/AT NO.597, 6 MAIN ROAD
ND
2 CROSS, BHUVANSESHWARINAGAR
NAGADEVANAHALLI, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560056

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAY SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT
RECORDS AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.128/2025 BY KENGERI
POLICE STATION FOR THE O/P/U/S 506, 504, 120B, 406, 420 OF IPC
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ACMM BENGALURU IN RESPECT
OF PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a. Call for relevant records and quash the FIR in
Crime No.128/2025 by Kengeri Police Station for
the o/p/u/s 506, 504, 120B, 406, 420 of IPC now
pending on the file of VI ACMM Bengaluru in
respect of petitioners/accused no.1 to 3;

b. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity.


2. A complaint having been filed by the respondent
before the jurisdictional police, no action having been
taken by the Kengeri Police Station, the same was
escalated to the Commissioner of Police. When no
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


action was taken by the Commissioner of Police, a
private complaint came to be filed under Section 223
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter for brevity referred to as BNSS).


3. The learned Magistrate, on considering the complaint
by way of his order dated 3.3.2025, referred the
matter to the Kengeri Police Station for investigation
under Section 175 (3) of the BNSS. It is challenging
the same, the petitioner is before this Court.


4. Sri.Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the petitioners,
would submit that in terms of Section 175 (3) of the
BNSS, it is required that the Magistrate would have
to hear the concerned Police Officer as to why the
Police Officer had refused for registration of the FIR
and only thereafter refer the matter for investigation
after application of his judicial mind. He refers to
Section 175 of BNSS, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
175. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable
case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the
order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a
Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of
such station would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIV:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy
Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at
any stage be called in question on the ground that the case
was one which such officer was not empowered under this
section to investigate
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after
considering the application supported by an affidavit made
under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such
inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this
regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as
above-mentioned.
(4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon
receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course
of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation,
subject to-
(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of
the incident from the officer superior to him; and
(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public
servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.


5. His submission is that subsection (3) of Section 175
of BNSS is a departure from Section 156 of the CrPC
and in terms thereof, there is a particular
requirement that the submission made in this regard
by the Police Officer is heard by the Magistrate
before ordering an investigation. He relies upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om
Prakash Ambadkar vs. The State of
Maharashtra & ors., [Criminal Appeal
No.352/2020], more particularly Paras 31, 35 and 37
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
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).
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
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.
37. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
The order passed by the Magistrate directing police
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is also set
aside.


6. By relying on Om Prakash Ambadkar , his
submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court compared
Section 175 (3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


the Cr.P.C. and determined the prominent changes
that have occurred.


7. One of them being that the Magistrate is required to
consider the submission of the officer in charge of
the police station as regards the refusal to register a
FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175
(3) of BNSS. He therefore submits that where the
police officer had not been heard before referring the
matter for investigation, the Hon'ble Apex Court set
aside the order passed by the Magistrate directing
police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the
CrPC. On all the above basis, he submits that a
perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that
the jurisdictional police were heard in the matter in
terms of Section 175 (3) of the BNSS requiring the
order to be set aside.


8. Sri. Vijay Shetty, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 does not dispute the situation but however
submits that if the order were to be set aside, the
matter may be remanded to the learned Magistrate
for fresh consideration by considering the
submissions to be made by the jurisdictional police.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025



9. Heard Sri. Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the
petitioner , Sri. B. Vijay Shetty, learned counsel for
respondent no.2, Ms.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for
respondent no.1. Perused papers.

The short question that would arise for
determination is whether a Magistrate can refer
any private complaint for investigation under
subsection (3) of Section 175 of BNSS without
hearing the submission of the jurisdictional
police as to why the complaint filed before the
police was not in the first place registered?


10. The above issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble
Apex Court, by a detailed judgment in Om Prakash
Ambadkar has considered the difference between
the earlier Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and Section 175
(3) of BNSS and held that one of the changes is a
specific requirement for consideration and
submission of the officer in charge of the police
station as regards the refusal to register a FIR before
issuing any direction under Section 175(3) of BNSS.


11. Hence, post the coming into force of the BNSS, if a
private complaint were to be filed before the
Magistrate on account of the criminal complaint filed
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


before the jurisdictional police not having been acted
upon, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the
submission of the jurisdictional police officer as to
why the registration of the FIR was refused in the
first place and thereafter apply his mind and consider
whether the matter is required to be referred to
investigation or not. In that view of the matter, this
Court passes the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed .
th

ii) The order dated 3.3.2025 passed by 6 ACJM,
Bengaluru is set aside. The matter is remanded
th
to the 6 ACJM, Bengaluru, for fresh
consideration in compliance with the direction
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om
Prakash Ambadkar's case and pass necessary
orders thereon.

iii) The Registrar General is directed to forward a
copy of the order in the case of Om Prakash
Ambadkar vs. The State of Maharashtra &
ors., [Criminal Appeal No.352/2020] to all the
Magistrates dealing with private complaints to
apply the ruling laid down in that matter so as
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59483
CRL.P No. 4866 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010224062025


to avoid a wrong reference to investigation as
that done in the present matter.

iv) It is made clear that this Court has not made
any observation on the merits of the matter.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5