Case Note & Summary
The matter arises from a criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an order dated 11-08-2026 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in PCR No. 28 of 2025. The petitioner, Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe, claims to be the State President of Lanchamuktha Karnataka Vedike, a registered organization engaged in espousing causes concerning probity in public administration. The genesis of the litigation was a complaint submitted by the petitioner before the High Grounds Police Station on 21-01-2025, alleging that Siddharatha Vihar Trust, a public charitable trust, falsely projected itself as an institution exclusively established for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to secure concessions and benefits earmarked for such institutions. The complaint alleged that the Trust approached the Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of a civic amenity site in Banashankari 6th Stage under the SC/ST quota and secured a 50% concession in lease amount, which was facilitated by the influence of certain trustees acting in concert with public servants, in violation of rules and procedure. The police did not register a crime, and the petitioner carried the grievance to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, by submitting another complaint on 30-01-2025, which also met with no response. Since the allegations involved offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner submitted an application on 30-07-2025 before the Governor seeking approval under Section 17A of the Act. Having exhausted these remedies, the petitioner approached the Special Court by registering a private complaint in PCR No. 28 of 2025, seeking reference of the matter for investigation in exercise of power under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The concerned court, however, declined to refer the complaint for investigation and instead directed that it would conduct an enquiry under Section 223 of the BNSS. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the present petition. The petitioner's senior counsel contended that the allegations cried out for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, as they required collection of official records, examination of the allotment process, identification of roles of public servants, and investigation into circumstances of concession, which are quintessentially matters for investigation, not an enquiry that the complainant could establish unaided. It was also argued that procedural safeguards like filing an affidavit could not justify steering the complaint into an enquiry. The counsel for respondent No.1-Karnataka Lokayukta fairly submitted that the allegations concerned acts of corruption and role of public servants, and would appropriately require investigation. The High Court observed that the issue lay in a narrow compass: whether the concerned court was right in ordering an enquiry under Section 223 BNSS or had to follow the procedure under Section 175(3) BNSS. The final decision is not contained in the available judgment text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Enquiry vs Investigation - Private Complaint Alleging Corruption - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 175(3), 223 - The Special Court declined to refer private complaint for investigation under Section 175(3) and directed enquiry under Section 223 of BNSS; petitioner contended that allegations of corruption and abuse of public office require specialized investigation and collection of official records; respondent Lokayukta agreed that allegations appropriately require investigation; Court observed that the issue lies in a narrow compass whether Section 223 enquiry was correct or Section 175(3) procedure should have been followed. Held that the matter requires determination of appropriate procedural route under BNSS. (Paras 3.5, 4.1-4.3, 5, 7) B) Corruption Law - Offenses by Public Servants - Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 314, 316, 336, 61, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Complaint alleged that Siddharatha Vihar Trust falsely projected itself as an SC/ST institution to obtain 50% lease concession from Bangalore Development Authority for civic amenity site; petitioner alleged involvement of public servants and trustees in facilitating illegal allotment; matter involved roles of trustees and public servants; Court considered whether these allegations necessitate investigation by specialized agency rather than enquiry by the Special Court. Held that allegations are quintessentially matters for investigation and not an enquiry by complainant unaided. (Paras 3.1-3.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, was right in ordering an enquiry under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 instead of following the procedure under Section 175(3) of the BNSS for referring the private complaint for investigation.
Law Points
- Private complaint alleging offenses under Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- 2023 may require investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS rather than Magistrate's enquiry under Section 223 BNSS
- allegations of corruption involving public servants and collection of official records are quintessentially matters for investigation by specialized agency
- procedural safeguards like affidavit are not justification for directing enquiry under Section 223 BNSS
- issue is whether Special Court should follow Section 175(3) route or conduct enquiry under Section 223 BNSS
