SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19941

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Arpitha B.C. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 2947 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gagan Deep E, Shreerama Shreedhara Hegde
For the Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha

Under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Magistrate is mandatorily required to hear the submissions of the jurisdictional police officer and conduct an inquiry before passing an order of reference for investigation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3) - Order of reference for investigation - Procedural compliance - The Magistrate passed an order referring a private complaint for investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS without hearing the jurisdictional police officer - The Court held that the Magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedure required by Section 175(3) BNSS, which mandates hearing the police before ordering investigation - The order is quashed and the matter remitted. (Paras 3-5).

Facts of the case:
A private complaint was filed under Section 223 of the BNSS, alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Magistrate, without hearing the police officer, referred the complaint for investigation. The petitioners, accused in the complaint, challenged this order of reference in a criminal petition before the High Court, citing procedural non-compliance.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that Section 175(3) of the BNSS introduces a mandatory requirement for the Magistrate to consider submissions of the police officer before ordering an investigation. Failure to comply with this procedural safeguard renders the order of reference unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the order of reference passed by the Magistrate is sustainable in view of the requirements of Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

Ratio Decidendi: Before directing investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, a Magistrate is mandatorily required to conduct an inquiry, consider the application supported by affidavit, and specifically hear the submissions of the concerned police officer to ensure judicial application of mind and accountability.

Result: Criminal petition allowed in part; order of reference quashed; matter remitted back to the trial court.

Table of Content
1. failure to follow the mandatory procedural inquiry mandated by section 175(3) of the bnss invalidates an order of reference. (Para 2 , 3)
2. remitting matters where procedural requirements were not met to ensure compliance. (Para 4 , 5)

BETWEEN:

1. MRS. ARPITHA B.C

D/O B.G. CHANDRE GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 44,

R/AT 528, 20TH MAIN ROAD,

JAYANAGAR, 4TH T BLOCK,

BENGALURU SOUTH,

BENGALURU - 560 041.

2. MRS. NAMRATHA BC,

W/O ABHIJITH VC

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

CHIKKAMAGALURU,

VAJUVALLI, HALASUMANE - 577 133.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GAGAN DEEP E, ADVOCATE AND

SRI. SHREERAMA SHREEDHARA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY

CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN PS,

CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION,

CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101,

REPRESENTED BY,

HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. APPUSWAMY GOWDA,

S/O PUTTUSWAMY GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

R/T DR RAJKUMAR ROAD,

CHIKKAMAGALUR TOWN,

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT CHIKMAGALUR, IN P.C.R.NO.130/2025, IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 322, 320, 323, 314, 316, 61(1) AND 61(2) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 AS PER ANNEXURE C.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Gagan Deep E, learned counsel and Sri. Shreerama Shreedhara Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.24 and 25. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. A private complaint comes to be registered invoking Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS' for short), which comes to be referred for investigation by the concerned Court to the jurisdictional Police through order dated 02-09-2025, which becomes a crime in Crime No.170 of 2025. The complaint is registered on 06.10.2025. The petitioner is now knocking at the doors of this Court challenging the proceedings before the concerned Court.

3. The order dated 02-09-2025 reads as follows:

“ORDER

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the accused persons under Section 223 of BNSS., for the offences punishable under Sections 322 , 320, 323, 314, 316 and 61(1) and (2) of B.N.S 2023.

The brief facts stated in the Complaint is that:

The Complainant is the member of the Timber merchants Welfare Organization and Trust, Chikkamagaluru District, which is the registered body and the Memorandum of Association is registered in the Office of Sub Registrar, Chikkamagaluru. The Trust did not possess any movable or immovable properties at the time of registration, but as per the Memorandum of Association, the income and the property of the Organization has to be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the association. The Memorandum of Association of the Timber merchants and Trust, Welfare Organization Chikkamagaluru District has purchased the immovable property to an extent of 16,820 Sq. feet through a registered Sale deed. The said property was purchased on behalf of the District Timber Merchants Association. The Complainant is the member of the said Timber Merchants Welfare Organization and Trust. But, the accused No.1 to 23 have sold and conveyed the said suit property in favour of Accused No.24 and 25 vide Sale deed dtd: 18.12.2024 for total consideration of a Rs.2,52,00,000/-. Though the Complainant is the member of the Timber Merchants Welfare Organization and Trust, he is not a party to the said Sale deed nor he has given consent to the said Sale deed. The accused persons have not paid any amount to him as mentioned in the Sale deed. The accused persons have sold prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top