The Karnataka High Court has held that it is statutory requirement under Section 379 BNSS that while directing preliminary inquiry, the Court must be of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the alleged offence.

The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition seeking action against Respondent who has obtained a ration card by perpetrating fraud.

The single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed, "The statutory requirement under Section 379 is two fold: (i) the Court must be of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the alleged offence, and (ii) the Court must record a finding to that effect before directing that a complaint be registered. The absence of an opinion to hold an enquiry renders the impugned direction procedurally unsustainable."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Angad Kamath while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Nalina Mayegowda.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was challenging an order wherein the office was directed to register a separate Petition on an Interlocutory Application filed by the Plaintiffs, stating that the Defendants have tendered false evidence. The Respondent had filed an application in an Interlocutory Application under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS Act, 2023, stating that the Petitioner/Defendant No. 11 filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury. The Trial Court then directed the office to register a separate C. Misc. petition.

Reasoning By Court

After referring to relevant Section, the Court at the outset observed that conducting a preliminary inquiry or recording a finding that the Petitioner had committed an offence in relation to any proceedings in a court, the court must first form an opinion.

"In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Amarsang Nathaji (as Himself and as Karta and Manager) vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others, the Apex Court, with reference to Section 340 of Cr.P.C., ruled that the court must form an opinion that “it is expedient in the interest of justice” to initiate an inquiry into offences of false affidavit and offences against public justice, more specifically referred to in Section 341 of Cr.P.C.," the Court observed.

Stating that an Appeal cannot lie against the impugned order, the Court further observed, "In such circumstances, where no statutory appellate or revisional remedy is provided under the BNSS, the only recourse available to the aggrieved party is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under its inherent powers, as applicable. Therefore, the present petition is held to be legally maintainable as it seeks to challenge an order passed without adherence to the mandatory statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023."

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: K. Ganesh Babu vs. The State Of Karnataka (2025:KHC:15120)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Angad Kamath,

Respondent- HCGP M.V. Anoop Kumar, Senior Advocate Nalina Mayegowda, Advocate Anusha B. Reddy, Advocate

Click here to read/ download Order








Karnataka High CourtJustice Hemant Chandangaoudar

Sheetal Joon