Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the police to register an FIR based on his complaint dated 29.09.2025 alleging various offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against his brother and sister-in-law (Respondents No.5 and 6). The dispute arose from a partnership firm where the petitioner alleged that Respondents No.5 and 6 created a parallel partnership firm with the same name, siphoned funds, and assaulted the petitioner's father. The petitioner argued that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, making FIR registration mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC as interpreted in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The court agreed, holding that the police had no discretion to defer registration when cognizable offences were disclosed. The court directed Respondent No.4 to register the FIR within two weeks and proceed with investigation.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru -- Petitioner sought direction to Respondent No.4 (Inspector of Police, Hulimavu Police Station) to register FIR based on complaint dated 29.09.2025 alleging offences under Sections 318(1), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 324(2), 336(2), 336(3), 316(2), 314, 351(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 -- Petitioner and Respondents No.5 and 6 were partners in M/s. Mithila Land Developers partnership firm -- Allegations of creation of parallel partnership firm with same name, siphoning of funds, and assault on petitioner's father -- Court held that complaint disclosed cognizable offences -- Relied on Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 -- Directed Respondent No.4 to register FIR within two weeks -- Petition allowed
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police authorities were obligated to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint dated 29.09.2025 alleging offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The court directed Respondent No.4 (Inspector of Police, Hulimavu Police Station) to register FIR based on complaint dated 29.09.2025 within two weeks from the date of order and proceed with investigation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 (CrPC) when information discloses cognizable offence -- No preliminary inquiry permissible when cognizable offence is disclosed -- Police officer's duty to register FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed -- Definition of cognizable offence under Section 2(g) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023 (BNSS
- 2023) -- Principles from Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 17
WP No. 30719 of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
Sri. H. Pavan Chandra Shetty for Petitioner, Sri. B. Ravindranath for Respondents 1 to 4, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, Sr. Advocate for Sri. S. Hemanth Bhandary for Respondents 5 and 6
The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of Karnataka, The Police Commissioner, Bengaluru City, The Deputy Commissioner of Police Bengaluru South, The Inspector of Police, Hulimavu Police Station, B.H. Kemparaj, Smt. Bindya K. Raj
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India seeking direction to police to register FIR
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to Respondent No.4 to consider complaint dated 29.09.2025 and register FIR for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Filing Reason
Police inaction on complaint alleging creation of parallel partnership firm, siphoning of funds, and assault
Previous Decisions
FIR registered in Crime No.663/2024 on 07.08.2024 for assault on petitioner's father under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC
Issues
Whether the police authorities were obligated to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint alleging offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that complaint disclosed cognizable offences making FIR registration mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC -- Relied on definition of cognizable offence under Section 2(g) of BNSS, 2023 -- Cited Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 to support mandatory registration principle
Ratio Decidendi
When a complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences, registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC and police have no discretion to defer or decline registration -- This principle applies equally under the new criminal law framework of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Judgment Excerpts
'The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.' -- Para 120.1 of Lalita Kumari judgment
'If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered.' -- Para 120.3 of Lalita Kumari judgment
'The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.' -- Para 120.4 of Lalita Kumari judgment
Procedural History
Petitioner submitted complaint dated 29.09.2025 before Respondent No.4 -- No action taken on complaint -- Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 30719 of 2025 on 2025 -- Matter heard and reserved for orders on 18.12.2025 -- Judgment pronounced on 30.01.2026
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 318(1), Section 318(2), Section 318(3), Section 318(4), Section 319(2), Section 324(2), Section 336(2), Section 336(3), Section 316(2), Section 314, Section 351(1)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 2(g)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 154
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 323, Section 324, Section 504, Section 34
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
