The Supreme Court said the appellate court erred on two counts as it did not give an opportunity to hear the accused before taking cognizance of the offenses under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and could not order an inquiry into the offense of defamation.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Niranjana Vanalli, the then Vice-Chancellor of Bengaluru North University, on the direction of the Kolar trial court on a private complaint filed by a former visiting professor of the university.
The Sessions Court, the High Court said, erred on two counts as it did not give an opportunity to hear the accused before taking cognizance of the offenses under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and could not order an inquiry into the offense of defamation.
Treat again
However, the High Court has now directed the appellate court to act in accordance with law to hear the complaint afresh, setting aside the order referring the complaint for investigation and quashing the FIR.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order partially allowing Mr. Vanalli’s petition.
The Sessions Court had in June 2025 directed the Gulpet police in Kolar to register an FIR and conduct an investigation after taking cognizance of the alleged offenses under Section 3(1)(c). (q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 356 (2) of the Bánfamatiya Suratiyahharatiya (BNS based) Sanfamatiya Act on a complaint filed by Manjunatha R.
The complaint was filed after he was terminated from service on the recommendation of the university syndicate.
About slander
“In the case of defamation, the Sessions Court concerned could not order an investigation to be conducted by the police as it is now a settled principle of law that if defamation is an amalgamation of all other offences, there cannot be an investigation by the police in a case of defamation occurring between two individuals or entities,” the high court said.
The High Court therefore stated that the Sessions Court should have taken cognizance of the criminal offenses in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 223 of the BNSS on the basis of a complaint on the grounds that recognized criminal offenses are applied together with the offense of defamation.
The High Court further stated that in the light of the procedure prescribed in Section 223(1) of the BNSS, the Sessions Court should have heard the accused before learning about the offences, as this procedure is mandatory according to the Supreme Court.
Published – 02 Feb 2026 22:01 IST
