Karnataka HC Sets Aside Notice To Head Constable Accused Of Abusing Karaga Festgoers, Requires Hearing And Superior-Officer Report

The petitioner, a Head Constable, was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in a private complaint alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from alleged abusive conduct by police personnel deployed during Karaga Mahotsava celebrations.

The complaint alleged acts connected with the petitioner’s official deployment.

On 25 September 2025, the Magistrate directed that the complainant’s sworn statement be recorded; after recording it, the Magistrate issued notice to the accused on 12 December 2025 under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petitioner challenged the notice and proceedings, relying on the absence of sanction under Section 218 and non-compliance with Section 223 of the BNSS.

Section 218 of the BNSS bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence against a covered public servant, where the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, without prior sanction; that bar operates at the stage of cognizance, not during preliminary or pre-cognizance steps.

Section 223(1) requires examination of the complainant and, before cognizance, an opportunity of hearing for the accused.

In addition, Section 223(2) prohibits taking cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for an offence alleged to have been committed in the course of official functions or duties unless the public servant has an opportunity to make assertions about the incident and a report on its facts and circumstances is received from a superior officer.

The Court relied on Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 96, and the interpretations of Section 223(2) in Suhyb P.J. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5070, and Rajdipsinh Narsinh Nakum v. State of Gujarat, decided 22 April 2026.

The complaint itself linked the alleged conduct to the petitioner’s deployment for maintaining law and order at the festival, bringing the complaint within Section 223(2)’s procedural safeguards.

The Magistrate had recorded the sworn statement and issued notice but had neither obtained a report from an officer superior to the petitioner nor afforded the petitioner the statutory opportunity to make assertions about the incident.

The absence of sanction under Section 218 did not invalidate the pre-cognizance steps, because sanction becomes relevant when cognizance is taken; however, that did not excuse non-compliance with the separate requirements of Section 223(2).

It sustained the proceedings up to the Magistrate’s order dated 25 September 2025, set aside the order dated 12 December 2025, and remitted the matter to the Magistrate to redo the procedure from the appropriate stage in accordance with Section 223(2) and the Court’s observations.