Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27671
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Doddegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Crl.P.No.4250/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Nataraj G.M.
For the Respondents: Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP
Under Section 175(3) of BNSS, a Magistrate must hear the police officer before ordering investigation into a private complaint, failing which the order of reference is unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3) - Procedure for Magistrate to order investigation - Mandatory requirement of hearing the police officer before referring matter for investigation under Section 175(3) of BNSS - Change from Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. - Non-compliance vitiates order of reference. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 173(4) - Application to Superintendent of Police - Requirement of affidavit - Codification of judicial practices from Priyanka Srivastava case. (Para 4)
(C) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318, 319, 335 read with Section 3(5) - Offences alleged. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 7, challenged the order of reference dated 17-02-2026 passed in P.C.R.No.24 of 2026 and the subsequent registration of FIR in Crime No.75 of 2026 for offences under Sections 318, 319, 335 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. The complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 223 of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate referred the matter to the jurisdictional police under Section 175(3) of BNSS for investigation.
Findings of Court:
The order of reference was set aside as the Magistrate did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 175(3) of BNSS.
Issues: Whether the order of reference for investigation under Section 175(3) of BNSS, passed without hearing the police officer, is sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 175(3) of BNSS mandates that before ordering investigation, the Magistrate must consider the application supported by affidavit, make such inquiry as he thinks necessary, and consider the submissions made by the police officer. The requirement of hearing the police officer is a prerequisite for a valid order of reference. Non-compliance vitiates the order.
Result: Petition allowed-in-part. Order of reference and subsequent FIR quashed. Matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicability of earlier judgment to co-accused. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. mandatory procedure under section 175(3) bnss requires hearing police officer. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. order quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with bnss. (Para 6) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are accused No3 to 7. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were before this Court in Crl.P.No.4250/2026. This Court by an order dated 07.04.2026 has quashed the order of taking of congnizance and remitted the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court.
2. Since the judgment is concerning the co accused, the same would become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hands as well. This Court has held as follows:
“ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order of reference dated 17-02-2026 passed in P.C.R.No.24 of 2026 and the subsequent registration of a crime in Crime No.75 of 2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 318 , 319, 335 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
2. Heard Sri. Nataraj G.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The complainant registers a private complaint invoking Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. for several offences. The concerned Court refers the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Pursuant to the investigation, the jurisdictional police then register a crime in Crime No.75 of 2026 for the aforesaid offences. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the complaint before the concerned Court. The concerned Court refers the matter for investigation without following the procedure as stipulated under Section 175 of the BNSS. The order of the concerned Court reads as follows:
"1. Complainant is present along with her counsel and filed the present complaint. Perused the complaint and the documents submitted along with the complaint. The offence alleged in the present complaint are punishable under section 318, 319, 335 R/w Sec.3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for the seek of brevity the same is hereinafter referred to as BNS). The alleged offences are cognizable offence. I have perused the complaint averments as well as the documents submitted by the complainant along with the complaint. It discloses that before filing this complaint before this court the complaint has approached the PSI of Saligrama P.S as well as the Superintendent of Police, Mysuru to take appropriate action against the accused. Furthermore, even the complainant has also filed affidavit for having exhausted all the remedies available under Section 173(1) and 173(4) of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha. But the police have not taken any action against the accused. Therefore, ultimately the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The complaint as well as the documents discloses that the complainant has exhausted the remedies available under Section 173(1) and 173(4) of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha. (for the seek of brevity the same is hereinafter referred to as BNSS). In that regard, the complainant has also filed her affidavit. Thereby the complainant has complied with the mandates imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 which is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri. Sathya Sai Central Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others in Crl. Petition No.1422/2021 dated: 22.07.2021.
3. The complaint averments and the documents submitted along with the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of offence by the accused persons. Hence, in the above background this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 175(3) of B.N.S.S this case is referred to the concerned jurisdictional P.S to in
