SRI. R VIJAY BHASKAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1383 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. R VIJAY BHASKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE J B RANGASWAMY

2. SMT. NETHRAVATHI K N
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O R VIJAY BHASKAR

RESIDING AT NO. 1503,
TH TH
4 C MAIN, 11 CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
ND
2 STAGE, BENGALURU-560086

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HANUMESH H N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001

2. SRI. LAXMAN VERMA,
S/O LATE S DORESWAMY,
RESDING AT NO.63/4 B MAIN ROAD













Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025


OPPOSITE VEERESH CONVENTION HALL,
BENGALURU-560073

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP, FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 OF THE IV ADDL. CJM
COURT, BANGALORE THEREBY REFERRING PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN
PCR NO.12868/2024 FOR INVESTIGATION AND CONSEQUENT
REGISTRATION OF FIR NO.527/2024 DATED 07.12.2024 ON THE
FILE OF KAMAKSHIPLAYA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 316, 318,
319 OF BNS OF THE IPC.

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;
1. Call for the relevant records and set aside the
order dated 20.11.2024 of the IV Addl. CJM
Court, Bangalore thereby referring private
complaint in PCR No.12868/2024 for
investigation and consequent registration of FIR
No.527/2024 dated 07.12.2024 on the file of
Kamakshiplaya P.S. for the offence p/us/ 316,
318, 319 of BNS of the IPC.

2. 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.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025



2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned
Magistrate has referred the private complaint for
investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 175 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), without
affording an opportunity to the jurisdictional police
officer to place before the Court the reasons for not
registering an FIR on the complaint initially lodged
before the police.

3. Sri Hanumesh H N, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the issue is covered by the
decision of this Court dated 27.10.2026 in
Manjunath & Others v. State by Kengeri Police
Station & Another , in Crl.P. No.4866 of 2025. He
submits that this Court, while considering the scope
of Section 175(3) of the BNSS, has held that the
Magistrate is required to hear the submission of the
jurisdictional police officer as to why the FIR was not
registered on the complaint initially lodged before the
police. Since no such opportunity was afforded in the
present case, the order of reference is contrary to
the mandatory requirement of law.

4. In Manjunath’s case , this Court considered the
scope of Section 175(3) of the BNSS in the light of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025


the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om
Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 238. This Court held that,
where a private complaint is presented before the
Magistrate on account of the jurisdictional police
having failed to act upon the complaint, it is
mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the submission
of the jurisdictional police officer explaining why the
FIR was not registered and thereafter apply judicial
mind to the question whether the complaint requires
to be referred for investigation.

5. Section 175(3) of the BNSS requires the Magistrate,
before ordering an investigation, to consider the
application supported by an affidavit under Section
173(4), make such inquiry as the Magistrate
considers necessary and consider the submission
made in that regard by the police officer. These are
safeguards introduced by the legislature to ensure
that the power to direct an investigation is exercised
after due application of mind and after considering
the circumstances surrounding the non-registration
of the FIR.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Om Prakash
Ambadkar’s case, has explained the distinction
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025


between Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
One of the significant changes introduced by the
latter provision is the requirement that the
Magistrate consider the submission of the officer in
charge of the police station regarding the refusal to
register the FIR before directing an investigation. The
requirement is not an empty formality but is
intended to ensure that the Magistrate considers the
version of the police officer along with the complaint
and the supporting material before passing an order.

7. In Manjunath’s case , this Court applied the above
principles and held that the jurisdictional police
officer must be afforded an opportunity to place his
submission before the Magistrate and that the
Magistrate must consider the same before directing
investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The
order of reference passed without following this
procedure was set aside and the matter was remitted
to the Magistrate for fresh consideration.

8. In the present case, the order dated 20.11.2024
passed in PCR No.12868 of 2024 does not indicate
that the jurisdictional police officer was afforded an
opportunity to submit the reasons for non-
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025


registration of the FIR or that any such submission
was considered by the learned Magistrate before
referring the complaint for investigation. The order of
reference, therefore, does not reflect compliance with
the requirement under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar’s case and the
decision of this Court in Manjunath’s case, the
order of reference cannot be sustained. The
consequential registration of FIR No.527 of 2024,
pursuant to the said order, is also liable to be set
aside. The appropriate course would be to remit the
private complaint to the learned Magistrate for fresh
consideration in accordance with Section 175(3) of
the BNSS, after affording the jurisdictional police
officer an opportunity to place his submission and
considering the same along with the complaint and
the supporting material.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the
merits of the allegations made in the private
complaint. The learned Magistrate shall consider the
matter afresh, independently and in accordance with
law, without being influenced by any observations
made in this order.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025



11. In the above circumstances this court passes the
following:
ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed .

ii. The order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned
IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, in PCR No.12868 of 2024, referring the
complaint for investigation under Section 175(3)
of the BNSS, is set aside.

iii. Consequently, FIR No.527 of 2024 dated
07.12.2024 registered by Kamakshipalya Police
Station and the proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed.

iv. PCR No.12868 of 2024 is restored to the file of the
learned Magistrate. The matter is remitted for
fresh consideration in accordance with Section
175(3) of the BNSS and the principles laid down in
Om Prakash Ambadkar and Manjunath , after
affording the jurisdictional police officer an
opportunity to place his submission before the
Court.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61920
CRL.P No. 1383 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010059822025



v. All contentions on the merits of the private
complaint are kept open.

vi. Both the petitioner and the respondent shall
appear before the said Court without requirement
of any notice on 30.11.2026.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru


(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
Verified
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10