Sri Lakshman vs State By - Criminal Case

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 19, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri Lakshman vs State By on 11 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14485
WP No. 17406 of 2025

                  HC-KAR

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                         BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 17406 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

                  BETWEEN:

                  1.   SRI LAKSHMAN
                       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                       S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA,
                       R/AT NO. 548,
                       4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
                       WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
                       MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
                       BENGALURU-560 086.
                       PETITIONER NO.1 NOT CLAIMED
                       SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT.

                  2.   SRI. L. VINAY
                       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

Digitally signed by S/O. LAKSHMAN,
SANJEEVINI J R/AT NO. 548,
KARISHETTY 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
Location: High WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
Court of Karnataka
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 086.
...PETITIONERS

                  (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                  1.   STATE BY
                       SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
                       SHESHADRIPURAM SUB DIVISION,
                        -2-
                                  NC: 2026:KHC:14485
                               WP No. 17406 of 2025

HC-KAR

 BENGALURU CITY,
 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
 HIGH COURT BUILDING,
 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
 BENGALURU-560 001.

1. SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR. B. A.
   AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
   S/O. ANJANAPPA,
   R/AT NO. 30, 2ND CROSS,
   HARIKUMAR GARDEN,
   MANJUNATHNAGAR,
   BAGALAGUNTE,
   BENGALURU-560 073.

   ALSO AT:
   MEMBERSHIP NO. 3439,
   ADDRESS NO. 178,
   CENTRAL SQUARE, 2ND FLOOR,
   PLATFORM ROAD,
   SHESHADRIPURAM,
   BENGALURU-560 020.
   ...RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR B.A., - RESPONDENT No.2 (PARTY
IN PERSON)]

 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER [ARTICLES 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) AND [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-

QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2025 PASSED IN PCR NO.
15091/2024 BY THE LEARNED FIRST ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 83/2025 REGISTERED BY THE
R1 SHESHADRIPURA, POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST ADDL. CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE -B.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14485
WP No. 17406 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                              ORAL ORDER 1.      The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.83 of 2025 registered for an

offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

1. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sampath A.,

appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional State

Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, appearing for

respondent No.1 and Sri. Krishna Kumar B.A., appearing as

party-in-person/respondent No.2.

1. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

Respondent No.2, who is the complainant, alleges that

petitioner No.1-Developer developing the lands and forming

sites, allotted the sites in favour of the Society to which

respondent No.2 is a member. The further allegation is that

petitioner No.1, through his son-petitioner No.2, sold Site

No.120, which belongs to the Society, to a third party.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 HC-KAR

On this score, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of

the offence and referred the matter for investigation under Section 173 of the BNSS to the jurisdictional Police to conduct

investigation and submit the report.
4. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as

follows:

"Case called. The learned counsel for the
complainant is present. Heard arguments, it is the
allegation of the complainant that the accused persons
have created the and fabricated the documents and
allotted the sides to third parties with an intention to
cheat the complainant.

In this regard the complainant approached the
jurisdictional police as well as the commissioner of police.
But as per the submission of the counsel for the
complainant, they have not taken any steps. Hence the
complainant approached this Court with this complainant.

When I gone through the case papers, it is noticed
that the complainant is made scientific allegation against
the accused persons about creation and fabrication of the
documents and about cheating. At this Preliminary stage
it is not possible to come to conclusion. The investigation
is necessary. Hence the matter is referred to the
jurisdictional police for investigation U/ Sec.175 of BNSS.

The complainant is hereby directed to furnish the
copy of the complainant and other documents.

Await report by 12.03.2025."
The Magistrate in terms of the afore-quoted order refers

the matter for investigation under Section 175 of the BNSS.

-5- NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The interpretation of Section 175 of the BNSS need

not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as

the Apex Court in the case of OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

1. Section 175 BNSS corresponds to Section
   156CrPC. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 BNSS is in pari
   materia with Section 156(1) CrPC except for the proviso
   which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the
   Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if
   the nature or gravity of the case so requires. Sub-section
   (2) of Section 175 BNSS is identical to Section
   156(2) CrPC. Section 175(3) BNSS empowers any
   Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance
   under Section 210 to order investigation in
   accordance with Section 175(1) and to this extent
   is in pari materia with Section 156(3) CrPC.

2. However, unlike Section 156(3) CrPC, any
   Magistrate, before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, is required to:

(a) Consider the application, supported by an
affidavit, made by the complainant to the
Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS;

(b) Conduct such inquiry as he thinks
necessary; and

(c) Consider the submissions made by the
police officer.
33. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 BNSS is a new
addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 HC-KAR

 cases when compared with the scheme previously existing
 in Section 156CrPC. It provides an additional safeguard to
 a public servant against whom an accusation of
 committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of
 discharge of his official duty is made. The provision
 stipulates that any Magistrate who is empowered to take
 cognizance under [Section 210](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/788422/) BNSS may order
 investigation against a public servant upon receiving a
 complaint arising in course of the discharge of his official
 duty, only after complying with the following procedure:

(a) Receiving a report containing facts and
circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to
the accused public servant; and

(b) Considering the assertions made by the accused
public servant as regards the situation that led to the
occurrence of the alleged incident.
34. A comparison of Section 175(3) BNSS with Section 156(3) CrPC indicates three prominent
changes that have been introduced by the
enactment of BNSS as follows:

(a) First, the requirement of making an
application to the Superintendent of Police upon
refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to
lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the
applicant making an application under Section
175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the
application made to the Superintendent of Police
under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit,
while making the application to the Magistrate
under Section 175(3).

(b) Secondly, the Magistrate has been
empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems
necessary before making an order directing
registration of FIR.

(c) Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to
consider the submissions of the officer in charge of
the police station as regards the refusal to register -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 HC-KAR

an FIR before issuing any directions under Section
175(3).
35. The introduction of these changes by the
legislature can be attributed to the judicial evolution of
Section 156CrPC undertaken by a number of decisions of
this Court. In [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of
U.P. Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC
287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] ,
this Court held that prior to making an application to the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, the applicant must
necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). It was further observed by the Court that
applications made under Section 156(3) CrPC must
necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by
the applicant. The reason given by the Court for
introducing such a requirement was that
applications under Section 156(3) CrPC were being
made in a routine manner and in a number of cases
only with a view to cause harassment to the
accused by registration of FIR.

1. It was further observed in [Priyanka Srivastava Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] that the requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).

.... .... ....

1. In light of the judicial interpretation and
   evolution of Section 156(3) CrPC by various
   decisions of this Court as discussed above, it
   becomes clear that the changes introduced by Section 175(3) BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural
   practices and safeguards which have been
   introduced by judicial decisions aimed at curbing -8- NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 HC-KAR

   the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate
   by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior
   motives.

2. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to
   consider the submissions made by the police officer
   concerned before proceeding to issue directions
   under Section 175(3) BNSS has affixed greater
   accountability on the police officer responsible for
   registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the
   Magistrate to consider the submissions of the police
   officer concerned also ensures that the Magistrate
   applies his mind judicially while considering both
   the complaint and the submissions of the police
   officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of
   passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more
   effective and comprehensive manner."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment holds

that the Magistrate is mandated to hear the jurisdictional Police

before the matter is referred to investigation as per [Section

175(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5431/) of the BNSS.

1. A perusal at the order of the Magistrate would

nowhere indicate that the rigour of Section 175(3) of the BNSS

is followed as the jurisdictional Police is not heard before

referring the matter to investigation. In the light of the said

procedural aberration, the inevitable conclusion would be -9- NC: 2026:KHC:14485 WP No. 17406 of 2025 HC-KAR

obliteration of the crime that is registered pursuant to the

order of reference.

1. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed and the
matter is remitted back to the hands of
the concerned Court to pass necessary
orders after following the procedure as
obtaining under Section 175(3) of the
BNSS and regulate its procedure
thereafter.

(ii) As a consequence, the impugned crime in
Crime No. 83/2025 pending before the I
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru,
stands quashed.
Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0