Karnataka HC Quashes BNS 318(3) FIR Against 3 Men For Lack Of Prior Magistrate Order, Leaving Complainant Free To Seek Investigation Permission.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with Chitradurga Rural Police Station on 9 December 2024, alleging an offence under Section 318(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The police registered Crime No. 467 of 2024 at about 7:30 p.m. and forwarded the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 8:05 p.m.

The Magistrate received it but did not make an order authorising investigation.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and the underlying complaint, contending that Section 318(3) BNS is non-cognizable and that the procedure under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) had not been followed.

Section 174(1) BNSS requires the officer in charge, on receiving information concerning a non-cognizable offence, to enter its substance in the prescribed book, refer the informant to the Magistrate, and forward the relevant daily diary report to the Magistrate fortnightly. Under Section 174(2) BNSS, a police officer may not investigate a non-cognizable case without an order of the Magistrate empowered to try the case or commit it for trial.

The First Schedule to the BNSS classifies an offence under Section 318(3) BNS as non-cognizable and bailable; Section 174(4) BNSS, concerning cases involving multiple offences where at least one is cognizable, therefore did not apply here.

The Court also relied on Asif and Another v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 201594 of 2024, decided 1 July 2025, which it cited for the requirement that the Magistrate consider the matter and make a written order permitting investigation before the police proceed.

The FIR alleged only the non-cognizable offence under Section 318(3) BNS, so the exception for a case involving a cognizable offence was unavailable.

The police registered the crime before forwarding the complaint to the Magistrate, and the Magistrate made no order authorising investigation.

The Court held that receipt or acknowledgment of the complaint was not equivalent to the specific authorisation required by Section 174(2) BNSS; forwarding the complaint after registration did not cure the absence of that order.

It therefore found that the statutory procedure had not been followed and that the resulting proceedings could not be sustained.

It reserved liberty to Respondent No. 2 to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 174 BNSS for an order authorising investigation; if such an order is made, the police may proceed in accordance with law.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations.