Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR, Order Directing Probe Against Former Bangalore North University VC Based On Defamation Complaint
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against former Vice Chancellor of Bangalore North University Professor Niranjana, registered based on an order passed by a trial court directing investigation into a criminal defamation private complaint.
In doing so the court observed that if defamation is an amalgam of all other offences the trial court could not have directed investigation by the police as defamation is a lis between two persons.
The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 356(2) (defamation) BNS.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order held:
"The private complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS is registered by respondent No.2 - complainant on 28.05.2025 for the aforesaid offences. The first legal snag is that, the reference is made for offence punishable under the provisions of the Act and Section 356(2) of the BNS, 2023, which was Section 500 of the earlier regime - the IPC, which is for defamation. If the issue is of defamation, the concerned Court could not have directed investigation to be conducted by the police as it is by now a settled principle of law that if defamation is an amalgam of all other offences, there cannot be an investigation by the police in the case of a defamation, which is between two individuals or entities...the concerned Court should have taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of the complaint, on the score that when cognizable offences are alleged along with the offence of defamation, the bar under Section 222 of the BNSS, which was Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. – the earlier regime, would kick in. Therefore, the matter ought not to have been referred to investigation".
The petitioner used to be Vice Chancellor of the Bengaluru North University, wherein due to certain allegations against respondent No.2–complainant, the petitioner, the Syndicate of the University had opined to terminate the services of respondent No.2, who was a part time lecturer.
Respondent No.2 challenged the same before the co-ordinate bench of the High Court which had set aside the order of termination and remitted the matter back to the University to afford an opportunity to respondent or conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and then pass necessary orders.
During the subsistence of the writ petition, respondent No.2 sets the criminal law into motion by registering a private complaint on 04.06.2025, for the offences of defamation and those under SCST Act. The Special Court refers the matter for investigation, which later is registered as an FIR. Against the FIR the petitioner moved the high court.
The high court said that in view of Section 223(1) BNSS, the trial court ought to have heard the petitioner prior to taking cognizance of the offences. It said that the procedure which is mandatory in terms of law and plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court and the High Court has been given "a go-by".
"The aforesaid legal snags would undoubtedly lead to obliteration of the reference and the crime so registered by the learned Magistrate. What remains is the complaint. In that light, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime so registered and the order of reference while sustaining the complaint. The concerned Court to act in accordance with law while considering the complaint of respondent No.2 afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order," the court said.
It quashed the trial court order referring the complaint for investigation and the registration of the FIR. It however remanded the matter back to the trial court to consider the complaint of respondent No.2, bearing in mind the observations made in the high court order.
The plea was partly allowed.
Case title: PROF. NIRANJANA v/s STATE & ANOTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7806 OF 2025