The Karnataka High Court criticised a Bengaluru Chief Judicial Magistrate for closing a private complaint, calling it breach of criminal procedure and describing it as “procedural harakiri.” “There is not even a method in the madness,” it observed.
The Karnataka High Court criticised the way a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Bengaluru closed a private complaint, finding that the trial court judge had disregarded criminal procedure and committed what Justice M. Nagaprasanna described as “procedural harakiri.”
The judge observed that the CJM failed to follow the process mandated by Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before shutting the private complaint.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the CJM’s order and quashed the prematurely registered first information report (FIR) that had formed the basis for the magistrate’s decision to close the private complaint.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Slams Judge For Denying Urgent Hearing in Child’s Surgery Custody Case
The Court ordered,
“There is procedural harakiri in the case at hand. Therefore, the order of the learned magistrate closing the proceedings stands obliterated … FIR stands quashed, closing of the PCR stands quashed, the FIR so registered without the reference being made by the learned magistrate also stands quashed, the PCR is restored to the file of the CJM Bengaluru Rural district to pass necessary orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order,”
Justice Nagaprasanna also made strong oral observations about the CJM’s conduct, saying,
“If it was one type of madness, we could have corrected. But this is the worst type of madness, it is difficult to (pass an) order. There is no method in the madness. What sort of magistrates these are. If I dismiss it quitely, they will do it again. This is a college-to-court problem.”
The dispute arose from a property-related disagreement in which two petitioners sought quashing of an FIR accusing them of offences including forgery, cheating and breach of trust. Initially, the police declined to lodge a criminal case, indicating the matter appeared to be civil.
The complainant thereafter filed a private complaint before the CJM, who invoked Section 175(3) to direct the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a report.
Petitioners’ counsel told the High Court the CJM had requested the police to file a report. Instead of submitting such a report, the Byadarahalli Police immediately registered an FIR naming the petitioners.
The CJM then closed the private complaint on the ground that an FIR had been registered.
The accused challenged the FIR before the High Court, arguing the police acted improperly by registering an FIR without first filing the report requested by the magistrate.
The High Court agreed, finding that the police could not have registered the FIR directly in the absence of an explicit order of reference from the magistrate under Section 175(3).
The court noted,
“The magistrate, blissfully ignoring the law, closes the private complaint on the score that the order of the calling for a report has already resulted in an FIR being registered. This blatant ignorance of the law cannot be countenanced on the part of the judicial officers. There is no order of reference for registration of the crime. Without the order of reference under Section 175(3), BNSS, the crime is registered that is accepted by the magistrate and the private complaint itself is closed.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed both the CJM’s order and the FIR, and restored the private complaint for the trial court to handle afresh and in accordance with the law, taking the court’s observations into account.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Suhith S.; the State was represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor Advocate B.N. Jagadeesha.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Trial Court Judge