IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1922 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1. P MANJUNATHA S/O LATE G BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT: VIDYANAGAR WARD 1, NEAR NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL, HOSADURGA TOWN - 577527.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S NARAYAN.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSADURGA PS, CHITRADURGA, Di gitally signed by REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GEETHA P G HIGH COURT COMPLEX, Location:

HIGH COU RT BANGALORE - 560001 OF KARNATAKA

2. MANJULA YANE MAMATHA W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT: HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 577527.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA.,HCGP FOR R1;

SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R2;)

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HOSADURGA TO REFER UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CR.P.C. TO POLICE INSPECTOR OF HOSADURGA POLICE TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

The criminal petition is filed solely on the ground that the complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') before the jurisdictional Magistrate, without first approaching the police authorities at all, and the learned Magistrate, erroneously in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, has entertained the same and has referred the matter for investigation, which has resulted in filing of C.C.No.19/2023. On the said ground, it is prayed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein be quashed.

2. In the PCR, it has been alleged against the petitioner that he has physically assaulted the complainant-respondent No.2, that he has recorded certain secret videos of her which are detrimental to her interests, and he has threatened her with dire consequences. If the allegations made in the private complaint are proved, then it is not disputed that the petitioner will have to be held guilty of the charges alleged.

3. The only ground that is urged at the present juncture is that the PCR filed is against the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others as alleged and not preceded by any complaint to the police concerned.

4. This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anurag Bhatnagar Vs. State [NCT of Delhi] reported in AIR (2025) SC 3427, wherein at paragraph Nos.32 to 35 has held as under:

"32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without exhausting his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration of the FIR. However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction.

33. To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count.

34. The Magistrate by the order dat