Mandatory Opinion Requirement under Section 379 BNSS Act: Safeguarding Administration of Justice

Introduction

MR. K. Ganesh Babu v. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No. 4132 of 2025) is a landmark decision of the Karnataka High Court delivered on April 9, 2025 by Hon’ble Justice Hemant Chandangoudar. The petitioner, Mr. K. Ganesh Babu, challenged an order of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru directing registration of a separate Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS Act), 2023. The key issue was whether a trial court may direct registration of an inquiry into alleged perjury without first forming and recording a judicial opinion that such an inquiry is “expedient in the interest of justice,” as mandated by Section 379 BNSS.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated January 23, 2025, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. It held that:

Section 379 BNSS corresponds to Section 340 Cr.P.C. and requires a court, before initiating an inquiry into offences affecting administration of justice, to form an opinion—recorded with reasons—that such an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice.
The trial court’s direction to register a Criminal Miscellaneous petition on the ground of alleged perjury was procedurally infirm: no judicial opinion was recorded that the inquiry was necessary.
Under Section 380 BNSS, only two categories of orders under Section 379 are appealable (refusal to register or direction after forming opinion), neither of which applied here. Hence, the High Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to correct the procedural lapse.
The trial court was directed to reconsider the application under Section 379 BNSS, record reasons, and pass a fresh order within one week.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.: The Supreme Court held that under Section 340 Cr.P.C. a person need not be heard before complaint to Magistrate and no preliminary inquiry or opinion-recording is mandated. The High Court found this decision distinguishable: it addresses the procedure under the old Cr.P.C., not the new BNSS Act, which explicitly requires opinion.

2. Pritish v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 253: Reiterated that no pre-complaint hearing or opinion is needed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Again, the High Court held that BNSS departs from Cr.P.C. practice by laying down a statutory safeguard.

3. Amarsang Nathaji (as Karta) v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel & Ors.: The Apex Court interpreted Section 340 Cr.P.C. and stressed that a court must form an opinion that “it is expedient in the interest of justice” to initiate an inquiry into false evidence. This principle was applied by analogy to Section 379 BNSS.

Legal Reasoning

• Statutory Text & Scheme: Section 379 BNSS, under Chapter 27 (offences affecting administration of justice), provides that a court “may, after such preliminary inquiry it thinks fit” record an opinion and forward a complaint to a Magistrate. Sub-section (1) mirrors Section 340 Cr.P.C. but adds the requirement of a recorded opinion “in the interest of justice.”

• Opinion-Formation Requirement: The Court held that the phrase “Court is of the opinion” is mandatory and non-negotiable. Absent that formed and recorded opinion, the direction to register an inquiry is void for want of statutory compliance.

• Appellate Scope under Section 380 BNSS: Only two types of Section 379 orders are appealable— refusal to record a complaint or direction to record a complaint after opinion. The trial court’s direction, without opinion, neither grants nor refuses the complaint in a manner contemplated by Section 380, thus leaving no appellate remedy under BNSS.

• Inherent Jurisdiction: The High Court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the procedurally defective order, as no other statutory remedy lay available to challenge it.

Impact

Future trial courts must strictly adhere to Section 379 BNSS by forming and recording reasons when deciding whether to inquire into alleged perjury or false evidence.
Parties will be assured that an inquiry into offences affecting administration of justice cannot be triggered lightly; judicial safeguards protect against frivolous or vexatious charges.
Limits the scope of interlocutory orders under BNSS, channeling challenges through specified appeal routes or inherent powers, thus bringing procedural clarity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 379 BNSS: A statutory provision requiring a court to form and record a reasoned opinion before initiating an inquiry into offences like perjury or fabricating evidence.
Section 215 BNSS: Defines offences “in relation to court proceedings,” such as false affidavits or evidence, punishable for obstructing justice.
Section 380 BNSS: Limits appeals to (a) refusal to record a complaint, or (b) recording a complaint after opinion—ensuring only substantive orders are challengeable.
Section 482 Cr.P.C.: High Court’s inherent power to secure ends of justice when no statutory remedy is available or when procedure is flagrantly violated.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition: A procedural vehicle in Karnataka courts for initiating inquiries into alleged offences affecting judicial administration.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court in MR. K. Ganesh Babu v. The State of Karnataka has firmly entrenched a critical procedural safeguard in the newly enacted BNSS Act: before embarking on an inquiry into alleged offences affecting administration of justice, a court must first apply its judicial mind, form an opinion “expedient in the interest of justice,” and record that opinion with reasons. This judgment ensures that inquiries for perjury or false evidence are neither mechanical nor open to abuse, thereby upholding fairness in judicial proceedings. Trial courts must now follow this mandate strictly, and litigants gain clarity on challenge routes, reinforcing the rule of law in criminal procedure.