Procedural Lapses Lead to Quashing of Criminal FIR: Karnataka High Court Clarifies BNSS Mandates

In a significant ruling regarding the procedural standards for handling private criminal complaints, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside an order of reference and the subsequent registration of an FIR against a former Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru North University. Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasized that courts must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, particularly regarding the duty to hear an accused before taking cognizance of an offense.

Case Background

The dispute originated between Prof. Niranjana, the former Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru North University, and a part-time lecturer (Respondent No. 2). Following the university’s decision to terminate the lecturer’s services, the complainant initiated a private criminal complaint (PCR No. 2/2025) alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 356(2) of the BNS, 2023 (defamation).

The Special Court initially referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC , resulting in the registration of Crime No. 71/2025. Prof. Niranjana approached the High Court to challenge this registration, citing a range of procedural and legal deficiencies.

The Two-Pronged Legal Snag

The High Court identified two critical flaws in the trial court's process:

1. Improper Referral of Defamation Claims : Referencing settled law in * Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India * and * Prashanth Sambargi v. State of Karnataka *, the Court noted that a magistrate cannot direct a police investigation for cases solely or substantially involving criminal defamation. Such matters require a private complaint process, where the magistrate must examine the complainant directly rather than utilizing the police machinery.
2. Violation of the Proviso to Section 223 of BNSS : The Court highlighted that the newly enacted Section 223 of the BNSS mandates that no cognizance of an offense shall be taken by a Magistrate without granting the accused an opportunity to be heard. This procedural "drill" was completely omitted by the trial court.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that the criminal case was a retaliatory "counter-blast" following the petitioner's professional action in terminating the lecturer's contract.

Conversely, the respondent maintained that the termination order itself contained defamatory elements, warranting police intervention. However, the Court focused its scrutiny on the procedural failures rather than the merits of the allegations themselves.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the gravity of its findings with these observations:

• "In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C."
• "The Magistrate has to, in terms of the proviso, issue a notice to the accused who is given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, notice shall be issued to the accused at that stage and after hearing the accused, take cognizance and regulate its procedure thereafter."
• "The proviso indicates that an accused should have an opportunity of being heard. Opportunity of being heard would not mean an empty formality."
• "As the complaint has been filed after 1st July, 2024, Section 223 of the BNSS will apply to the present complaint."

The Court’s Decision

Justice Nagaprasanna ordered the immediate quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 71/2025 and the order of reference. Crucially, the Court did not dismiss the dispute entirely; instead, it remitted the matter back to the trial court. The magistrate is directed to reconsider the complaint of respondent No. 2 in strict accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically ensuring the accused is afforded an opportunity to be heard before any cognizance is taken.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to trial courts that the transition to the BNSS framework requires rigorous compliance with new safeguards. It reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be a mechanism for summary harassment, particularly when specific procedural pathways, such as those for defamation, have been clearly defined by the legislature.