Procedural harakiri: Karnataka High Court criticises trial court's approach in property dispute

The Karnataka High Court on Friday criticised the manner in which a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Bengaluru closed a private complaint, finding that that the trial court judge had defied criminal law procedure and committed "procedural harakiri" [MN Ramesh v State of Karnataka]..Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the CJM had not followed the procedure laid down in Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before closing the private complaint. The High Court, therefore, quashed the CJM's order as well as the premature first information report (FIR) based on which the said trial court's order closing the private complaint (PCR) was passed. "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," the Court ordered. .The irregular manner in which the CJM had earlier closed the complaint also led Justice Nagaprasanna to orally remark,"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 Court was dealing with a plea by two persons (petitioners) to quash an FIR registered against on allegations of forgery, cheating, breach of trust, etc. tied to a propery dispute. The police had initially refused to register a criminal case in the matter, and had told the complainant that it appeared to be a civil dispute. The complainant then approached a trial court (CJM) with a private complaint. The CJM asked the police to act. Notably, Section 175 (3) of the BNSS empowers magistrates to order police investigations in certain cases. The petitioners' counsel told the High Court that the CJM's order was for the police to file a report based on its preliminary police probe. However, instead of filing a report, the Byadarahalli Police directly registered an FIR against the petitioners.The FIR was then submitted before the magistrate, who closed the private complaint after noting that an FIR has now been registered. The persons who were named as accused persons in the FIR then approached the High Court to quash the same. They questioned whether the police could have registered the FIR right away without submitting a report first, when the magistrate had only called for a report. The High Court agreed that the police could not have registered the FIR directly, without the magistrate's express reference. In its order, the High Court observed, "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.".The Court proceeded to quash the CJM's order and the FIR. It also restored the private complaint, so that it can be dealt with in accordance with the law by the trial court..The petitioners were represented by Advocate Suhith S. The State was represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor Advocate BN Jagadeesha.