Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J
ASHNUTH CHOPRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10715 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhiraj A K
For the Respondents: Waheeda M.M, Tanuja V
The procedure under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, including the requirement of an application to the Superintendent of Police supported by an affidavit and the consideration of police submissions, is mandatory before a Magistrate can order an investigation to prevent misuse and harassment.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged an order passed by the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, directing the registration of an FIR under Sections 329(3), 60(b), 318(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The primary contention was that the Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the ordering of investigations. The central issue was whether the procedural mandates of Section 175(3) of the BNSS—specifically the requirement for the complainant to first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) supported by an affidavit, and for the Magistrate to consider police submissions—are mandatory. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash Ambakar vs. State of Maharashtra, the court reasoned that these provisions codify judicial safeguards intended to prevent the misuse of the legal process and protect individuals from harassment by ensuring the Magistrate applies a judicial mind before ordering an FIR. The criminal petition is allowed in-part, and the impugned order dated 21.06.2025, referring the matter for investigation and the consequent registration of the crime in Crime No.260/2025, stand quashed.
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2025 PASSED IN PCR NO.8900/2025 BY THE LEARNED VI ACJM, BENGALURU DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND CONSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.260/2025 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 329(3), 60(b), 318(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF BNS BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACJM, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4 are before the Court calling in question an order of reference dated 21.06.2025, for conduct of investigation, passed by the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in P.C.R.No.8900/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 60(b), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, which has then become a crime in Crime No.260/2025 for the aforesaid offences.
Heard Sri Dhiraj A.K., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Tanuja V., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
A co-ordinate bench of this Court grants an interim order of stay on 06.08.2025. The interim order reads as follows:
“The petitioner – accused is primarily aggrieved by the action of the learned Magistrate in referring the matter to the jurisdictional Police Station to conduct investigation and submit report in violation of the mandate provided under Sections 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Ambakar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , which squarely addresses the issue involved in the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the mandate under sub-section (3) of Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must be scrupulously followed by the learned Magistrate before initiating any steps to secure the presence of an individual either for the purposes of investigation or to conduct an inquiry suo motu. In the present case, a prima-facie procedural lapse is evident from the records, constituting a fundamental flaw in the process. In view of the same, further investigation in Crime No.260/2025 requires to be stayed. Accordingly, further investigation in Crime No.260/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 60(b), 318(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS by the Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed off accordingly. Learned Additional SPP is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2.”
The interim order is granted primarily on the score that there is violation of the mandate of the statute as obtaining under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant would also submit that the Court has erred in not following the mandate of the statute.
The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambakar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 has held as follows:
“…. … …. 28. However, before we part with the matter, we deem it necessary to discuss the changes brought to the scheme of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”). 29. Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 of the BNSS is in parimateria with sub-section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the
