1. Criminal petition to quash private complaint, order referring it for investigation, and FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 54000
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, J
Harsha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 2827 of 2020
Important Points
A pre-cognizance order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referring a complaint for investigation cannot be quashed based on merits or defense evidence, provided the Magistrate applied their mind to the fact that cognizable offences are disclosed in the complaint.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR/Complaint
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure - Section 156(3) - Scope of Judicial Review - An order passed by a Magistrate referring a private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) is a pre-cognizance order; the court is only required to see if the contents of the complaint disclose cognizable offences and if the Magistrate applied their mind to the facts. (Para 8, 9)
(B) Investigation - Stage of Inquiry - Merits of Allegations - When a matter is referred for investigation, the veracity of allegations or the existence of a defense (such as documents proving the complainant owes money) must be examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and not by the High Court at the pre-cognizance stage. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable to quash a pre-cognizance order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referring a complaint for investigation.
(B) Investigation - Stage of Inquiry - Merits of Allegations - When a matter is referred for investigation, the veracity of allegations or the existence of a defense (such as documents proving the complainant owes money) must be examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and not by the High Court at the pre-cognizance stage. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable to quash a pre-cognizance order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referring a complaint for investigation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijetha R. Naik
For the Respondents: Suhas Gowda M., Varun Gowda
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijetha R. Naik
For the Respondents: Suhas Gowda M., Varun Gowda
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued complaint was second complaint, defective, and filed to harass; respondents argued pre-cognizance order was valid. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The order was a pre-cognizance referral; the court cannot consider merits at this stage; investigation is the police's duty. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. A pre-cognizance order under Section 156(3) CrPC does not require detailed examination; the magistrate only examines if cognizable offences are disclosed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. What is the scope of judicial review at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) CrPC?
The court only examines if the complaint discloses cognizable offences. It does not consider the merits of the case, which are for the investigating officer. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Can a second complaint be referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC?
Yes. If the earlier complaint was not in compliance with procedural requirements and was withdrawn, a fresh compliant can be filed. (Para 6 )
BETWEEN:
1. DR. HARSHA
S/O LATE DR MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2. SMT. NANDINI HARSHA
W/O DR. HARSHA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.253, 'SMIRTHI'
15TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560080.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
3. SMT. SITARA HARSHA
D/O DR. HARSHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
(FALSELY CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANTS AS
RESIDING AT NO.253, 'SMIRTHI' 15TH MAIN
RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560080
BUT SHE IS RESIDING AT USA SINCE 2010
THE VISA AND PASSPORT DETAILS ARE ANNEXED
..PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JALAHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560001.
2. UMA MAHESH M.S.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
3. RANJITHA MAHESH
W/O UMA MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.2/1
5TH CROSS, SBM COLONY
BRUNDAVAN NAGAR, MATHIKERE
BENGALURU-560054.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS IN P.C.R.NO.1175/2020 BEFORE THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED BY LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, REFERRING THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT 1175/2020 FOR INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF CASE AS FIR IN CR.NO.22/2020 REGISTERED BY THE JALAHALLI POLICE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 460 AND 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. In this petition, prayer is sought for quashing private complaint filed by the complainant in PCR No.1175/2020 and also prayed this Court to quash the order dated 01.02.2020, wherein the Trial Court passed an order referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and quash the registration of FIR in Crime No.22/2020 registered by Jalahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC as per Annexure-C and grant such other relief.
3. Having perused the order passed by Trial Court, the Trial Court having received the complaint, passed the order dated 01.02.2020 which reads as hereunder:
"ORDER
Heard counsel for the complainant.
The complaint is supported with affidavit in compliance of the judgment in AIR 2015 SC 1758 Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs State of UP and others .
On perusal of the complaint averments cognizable and non bailable offences are discloses. Hence, it is just and proper to refer the matter to investigate into the allegations made against the accused. Taking into consideration the nature of the offences and other materials placed before the Court, I pass the following order :
ORDER
1. Complaint is referred for investigation u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to SHO, Yashwanthpura Police Station.
2. Await report.
Sd/-
IV ACMM, Bengaluru"
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that order impugned referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is without application of mind. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that this is a second complaint and the second complainant before the Trial Court has not signed the complaint, though the name of Smt. Ranjitha Mahesh has been shown as complainant and mentioned as complainants. The other ground urged before this Court is that the very private complaint is defective and learned Magistrate could not have entertained the same, as such the order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the private complaint un
