S.379 BNSS | Court Must Apply Judicial Mind & Give Reasons Before Initiating Complaint For False Evidence, Forged Documents: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.The petitioner had approached the high...
The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.
The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar clarified thus while allowing a petition filed by one K.Ganesh Babu.
It said, “Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has directed the office to register a separate criminal miscellaneous petition based on the application filed under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without recording a specific finding or forming a judicial opinion that such an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice. Section 379 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), mandates that before initiating a complaint for offences affecting the administration of justice—such as giving false evidence or fabricating documents—a Court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion, supported by reasons, that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint".
"The statutory requirement under Section 379 is twofold: (i) the Court must be of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the alleged offence, and (ii) the Court must record a finding to that effect before directing that a complaint be registered. The absence of an opinion to hold an enquiry renders the impugned direction procedurally unsustainable,” it added.
For context, Section 379 states that when, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry it thinks fit (a) record a finding to that effect; make a complaint thereof in writing and send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
Section 215 pertains to prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
The court said, “A bare reading of the said provisions indicates that before conducting a preliminary inquiry or recording a finding that the petitioner has committed an offence in relation to any proceedings in a court, the court must first form an opinion.”
Following which it held, “Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has directed the office to register a separate criminal miscellaneous petition based on the application filed under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without recording a specific finding or forming a judicial opinion that such an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice.”
The high court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Amarsang Nathaji (as Himself and as Karta and Manager) vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others, where with reference to Section 340 Cr.P.C. (now Section 379 BNSS), it was held that the court must form an opinion that “it is expedient in the interest of justice” to initiate an inquiry into offences of false affidavit and offences against public justice, more specifically referred to in Section 341 of Cr.P.C.
Further it said “In the present case, since the trial Court has not recorded any finding or formed the requisite opinion, but has merely directed the office to register a separate C. Misc. petition to conduct an inquiry, the said direction does not fall within the scope of appealable orders under Section 380".
It is also clarified that “Where no statutory appellate or revisional remedy is provided under the BNSS, the only recourse available to the aggrieved party is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under its inherent powers, as applicable. Therefore, the present petition is held to be legally maintainable as it seeks to challenge an order passed without adherence to the mandatory statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023.”
Setting aside the trial court order the high court directed the trial court to reconsider the application and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within one week.
Case Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Angad Kamath
Counsel for State: HCGP M.V Anoop Kumar
Counsel for R 2: Senior Advocate Nalina Mayegowda for Advocate Anusha B Reddy
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2025