Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1922 OF 2023 BETWEEN:
1. P MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE G BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT: VIDYANAGAR WARD 1, NEAR NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL, HOSADURGA TOWN - 577527. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S NARAYAN.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally BY HOSADURGA PS, CHITRADURGA, signed by REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT COMPLEX, HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560001 OF KARNATAKA
2. MANJULA YANE MAMATHA W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT: HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 577527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA.,HCGP FOR R1; -2- SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R2;) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HOSADURGA TO
REFER UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF CR.P.C. TO POLICE INSPECTOR OF HOSADURGA POLICE TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
The criminal petition is filed solely on the ground that the complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') before the jurisdictional Magistrate, without first approaching the police authorities at all, and the learned Magistrate, erroneously in violation of the
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
-3- of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, has entertained the same and has referred the matter for investigation, which has resulted in filing of C.C.No.19/2023. On the said ground, it is prayed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein be quashed.
2. In the PCR, it has been alleged against the
petitioner that he has physically assaulted the complainant-respondent No.2, that he has recorded certain secret videos of her which are detrimental to her interests, and he has threatened her with dire consequences. If the allegations made in the private complaint are proved, then it is not disputed that the petitioner will have to be held guilty of the charges alleged.
3. The only ground that is urged at the present
juncture is that the PCR filed is against the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava -4- and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others as alleged and not preceded by any complaint to the police concerned.
4. This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anurag Bhatnagar Vs. State [NCT of Delhi] reported in AIR (2025) SC 3427, wherein at paragraph Nos.32 to 35 has held as under:
"32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr PC without exhausting his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration of the FIR. However, as entertaining an application directly by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction.
33. To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) Cr PC directly unless the informant has -5-
availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) Cr PC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) Cr PC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count.
34. The Magistrate by the order dated 01.07.2005
has simply directed for the registration of the FIR so as to set the criminal law in motion but has not exercised his power under Section 190 of the Cr PC of taking cognizance thereof. In such a situation, the order so passed by the Magistrate, though irregular, is of no prejudice to any party, much less to the VLS. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this court to interfere in the matter or with the order of the Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 or with the order impugned passed by the High Court.
Point (ii): Whether the order dated 01.07.2005
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is an order
passed without application of mind, irrespective of the fact that it states that the parties were “heard” and the documents were “perused”? -6-
35. Section 156 of the Cr PC provides for the power of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence. It inter alia vide sub-section
(3) empowers the Magistrate to order an
investigation in a cognizable case. No doubt, sub- section (3) does not specifically provide that the Magistrate in passing such an order of investigation has to pass a speaking order or has to apply his mind to the contents of the application or the material produced in support of it. Nonetheless, it is a well recognized principle of law that whenever any power is bestowed upon a judicial authority, it is incumbent that it should be exercised on the basis of sound legal principles by application of mind and by a speaking order. Therefore, a reasoned order upon application of
judicious mind is inherent while passing an order
under Section 156(3) of the Cr PC."
5. In the instant case also, the allegations made
against the petitioner, if proved, amounts to the commission of a crime under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged in the complaint. Whether the petitioner is guilty of the same or not is a matter of -7- trial, which cannot be decided by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate
ought to have directed the parties concerned to first approach the jurisdictional police and only thereafter file the PCR. However, an error has been committed by entertaining the PCR directly and the learned Magistrate has directed the concerned police to conduct the necessary investigation. The police after registering the FIR, has done the necessary investigation and are of the opinion that the petitioner herein is also guilty of the offences alleged and have filed a police report against the petitioner.
7. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgment, under the given peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the act of the learned Magistrate in entertaining the private complaint without the petitioner first approaching the jurisdictional police have to be considered as a procedural irregularity. Setting -8- aside the same at this juncture and by giving liberty to the complainant to once again approach the police will only make the police redo their investigation once again without any substantial reason and it does not serve the interest of justice.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to interfere and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24