High Court Slams Police, Magistrate Procedures, Restores Private Complaint
The Karnataka High Court has severely condemned what it termed "procedural hara-kiri" by the police and magistrates, leading to the quashing of an FIR and the restoration of a private complaint. Justice M. Nagaprasanna criticized the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Bengaluru for the improper manner in which a private complaint in a property dispute case was concluded. The court highlighted the CJM's failure to follow mandatory procedures outlined in Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, expressing strong disapproval over the complete breakdown of procedural discipline in the criminal justice process. This judgment arose from a criminal petition filed against the police registering an FIR and the CJM subsequently closing the private complaint, in the case of M.N. Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka.
The case originated when the complainant approached the police to register a case. The police refused to file an FIR, citing the dispute as civil in nature, and instead issued a non-cognizable report. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 223 of the BNSS. The Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, did not immediately direct the registration of an FIR but instead invoked powers under Section 175(3) BNSS, requesting a report from the jurisdictional police. However, the police deviated significantly from this directive; instead of submitting a report, they registered an FIR under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal intimidation, and forgery. When this FIR was presented before the Magistrate, the court considered its registration as compliance with its earlier directive and proceeded to close the private complaint. The petitioner challenged both these actions, arguing that neither the police nor the Magistrate acted in accordance with the law.
The High Court, in its scathing judgment, allowed the petition, quashing both the FIR and the Magistrate's order, and reinstated the private complaint to its original status. Justice M. Nagaprasanna clarified that a Magistrate's direction under Section 175(3) BNSS to seek a report is a limited instruction for a factual report following a preliminary inquiry, and does not automatically authorize the police to register an FIR without a specific order to that effect. The court found that the police exceeded their jurisdiction by registering an FIR without such a direct order and that the Magistrate erred by closing the private complaint without verifying if the police had actually complied with the original directive for a report. This demonstrated a clear ignorance of the law and a failure to exercise judicial discretion appropriately. The High Court stressed the critical importance of procedural discipline in criminal proceedings and adherence to statutory mandates to ensure fairness and justice, directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, to consider the private complaint afresh and proceed in accordance with the law.
Source: CourtBeat News (Kannada)
.png)
