'Procedural Harakiri': Karnataka High Court Criticizes Magistrate For Closing Private Complaint In Absence Of S.175(3) BNSS Order Directing FIR

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (March 27) expressed its disapproval at a magistrate's order which closed a private complaint, after noting that the police had instead of filing a report as called for by the magistrate court had gone ahead and filed a cheating FIR pursuant to which the complaint was closed. In doing so the court quashed the FIR and the trial court order, remarking that there was "procedural harakiri" which had occurred in the matter. As per the facts, when the police submitted a copy of the FIR, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (Rural), closed the private complaint even without the police report called for in the PCR (Private Complaint Register). The petitioners had moved the high court challenging the FIR.Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order noted that initially the complainant had approached the jurisdictional police for registration of the crime but the police did not register the case stating that the matter was purely civil in nature and rendered a non-cognizable report (NCR). Pursuant to this the complainant approached the Magistrate court in a private complaint under Section 223 BNSS. "The learned Magistrate calls for a report as obtaining under Section 175 (3) BNSS from the hands of jurisdictional police. What the jurisdictional police would do is quiet surprising. The jurisdictional police would register an FIR pursuant to order of the learned magistrate calling for a report and place the FIR as a report before the magistrate. The magistrate blissfully ignoring the law closes the private complaint on the score that the order of calling for a report has already resulted in an FIR being registered. This blatant ignorance of law cannot be countenance on part of judicial officers”, the court noted in its order.The high court set aside the trial court order noting that there was "no order for reference for registration of a crime" by the magistrate and without such an order for reference under Section 175(3) the crime was registered and accepted by magistrate and the private complaint was itself closed. "There is procedural harakiri in the case at hand. Therefore the order of magistrate closing the proceedings stands obliterated...The said FIR also needs to be obliterated...Closing of the PCR stands quashed. The FIR so registered without reference being made also stands quashed. The PCR is restored to file of CJM Bengaluru (Rural) to pass necessary orders," the court added in its order. During the hearing when the petitioners' counsel submitted that the magistrate had after receiving the FIR closed the complaint and that instead of submitting a report the police had gone ahead and registered an FIR. To this the court orally said, “Who is this magistrate?...this is the worst madness. There is not even method in this madness. What sort of magistrates are these? It's a college to court problem". The magistrate, in response to the private complaint, called for a report from the Police under Section 175(3) BNSS since the complainant alleged that the police had taken no action pertaining to his complaint. The petitioners also argued that the magistrate was unaware of the previous NCR.For context, Section 175(3) of BNSS allows any magistrate empowered under section 210 of BNSS, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173 by the complainant, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submissions made in this regard by the police officer, to order such an investigation as above-mentioned.The petitioners' counsel submitted that the police construed the magistrate's call for a submission report on the private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS as an order for registration of FIR and registered the FIR without submitting the report envisaged. The FIR was registered under BNS Sections 316(2)(Criminal breach of trust),318(4)(Cheating),351(2)(Criminal intimidation),336(3)(Forgery),338 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc).The petition was allowed. Adv. Suhith S appeared for the petitioners.Case Title: M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of KarnatakaCase No: CRL.P 14239/2025

'Procedural Harakiri': Karnataka High Court Criticizes Magistrate For Closing Private Complaint In Absence Of S.175(3) BNSS Order Directing FIR

Sebin James

Tags