The sessions court, the High Court said, erred in two ways as the latter had not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognisance of the offences under provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and it could not have ordered investigation into the offence of defamation.
The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Niranjana Vanalli, the then Vice-Chancellor of Bengaluru North University on the direction of a sessions court in Kolar based on a private complaint lodged by a former guest faculty of the varsity.
The sessions court, the High Court said, erred in two ways as the latter had not afforded an opportunity of hearing the accused before taking cognisance of the offences under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and it could not have ordered investigation into the offence of defamation.
Treat afresh
However, the High Court has now directed the sessions court to act as per the law treating the complaint afresh while setting aside the order of referring the complaint for investigation and quashing the FIR.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while partly allowing the Mr. Vanalli’s petition.
The sessions court in June, 2025, directed the Gulpet police in Kolar to register an FIR and conduct investigation after taking cognisance of alleged offences under Section 3(1)(q) and (u) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Section 356(2) (defamation) of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) based on the complaint lodged by Manjunatha R.
The complaint was lodged after he was terminated from the service on the recommendation of the varsity’s syndicate.
On defamation
“If the issue is of defamation, the sessions court concerned could not have directed investigation to be conducted by the police as it is by now a settled principle of law that if defamation is an amalgam of all other offences, there cannot be an investigation by the police in the case of a defamation, which is between two individuals or entities,” the High Court observed.
Therefore, the High Court said that the sessions court should have taken cognisance of the offences by following the procedure prescribed in Section 223 of BNSS on the basis of the complaint for the reason that cognisable offences are alleged along with the offence of defamation.
Further, the High Court said that in the light of the procedure prescribed under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, the sessions court ought to have heard the accused prior to taking cognisance of the offences as this procedure is mandatory as held by the apex court.
Published – February 02, 2026 10:01 pm IST
