The proceedings under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 340 CrPC) can potentially apply even in proceedings before certain Revenue Courts or quasi-judicial authorities in Karnataka, but only if that authority legally qualifies as a “Court” for purposes of Section 215/379 BNSS.

The issue is not the designation (Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, ADLR, etc.) but whether that authority is treated as a “Court” under law while exercising judicial/quasi-judicial powers.

Under Section 379 BNSS, the concerned court itself conducts a preliminary satisfaction inquiry and then sends a complaint to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).

Section 379 BNSS replaces Section 340 CrPC the concerned adjudicating authority must first record satisfaction; only thereafter can complaint be forwarded to Magistrate, judicial reasoning is mandatory before initiating action.

I have considered your query regarding the applicability of Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in proceedings before revenue authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly before the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Director of Land Records, Deputy Director of Land Records and Regional Joint Director of Land Records.

Your understanding is broadly correct, however certain legal distinctions are important. Section 379 BNSS substantially relates to situations involving false evidence, false affidavits, fabricated documents or offences affecting administration of justice committed during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The central issue therefore is whether the concerned authority can be treated as a “Court” for the limited purpose of initiating such proceedings.

Proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are generally regarded as quasi-judicial proceedings and for certain statutory purposes these authorities are treated akin to revenue courts. Therefore, where a party intentionally files false affidavits, fabricated records, forged revenue extracts or knowingly makes false statements material to the proceedings, the affected party may move an application requesting initiation of proceedings under the relevant provisions relating to false evidence and fabricated documents.

However, such prosecution is not automatic merely because one party alleges falsity against the other. The concerned authority must first independently examine whether a deliberate and material falsehood appears to have been committed and whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere incorrect statements, weak claims, disputed interpretations or unsuccessful arguments do not by themselves justify criminal prosecution.

In practical terms, the respondent may file a detailed application before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner specifically identifying the false statements, false affidavit portions, fabricated records or suppression of material facts relied upon by the appellant. The application should clearly demonstrate, through documentary evidence, that the statements are knowingly false and materially affect adjudication of the case. The authority may then examine the record and hear the parties if required.

If the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that a prima facie case exists and that intentional falsehood affecting judicial administration has occurred, the authority may record reasons and make a complaint or reference to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Magistrate thereafter proceeds in accordance with criminal procedure law. The revenue authority itself ordinarily does not conduct the criminal trial but performs the preliminary satisfaction process before forwarding the matter to the competent criminal court.

As regards the Assistant Director of Land Records, Deputy Director of Land Records and Regional Joint Director of Land Records, applicability depends upon the precise nature of proceedings being conducted by them. If they are acting purely in administrative or technical capacity, proceedings of this nature may not ordinarily arise. However, if they are exercising statutory adjudicatory powers, recording evidence or entertaining sworn affidavits in quasi-judicial proceedings, then in appropriate circumstances similar principles may apply.

It is also important to proceed cautiously because courts and quasi-judicial authorities generally discourage filing of perjury-type applications merely as pressure tactics during litigation. Therefore, such application should ideally be pursued only where the falsity is clear, deliberate, supported by official records and materially connected to the issues under adjudication.

In conclusion, proceedings under provisions akin to BNSS 379 may be invoked before revenue or quasi-judicial authorities in Karnataka where intentional false affidavits or fabricated documents are filed in judicial proceedings. If the concerned authority is satisfied that prosecution is warranted in the interests of justice, it may forward or file a complaint before the competent Magistrate, who thereafter conducts proceedings in accordance with law.

Yes if the said authority comes under a court or tribunal then action can be taken against them

1. Preliminary Legal Assessment

The question raised touches upon one of the most consequential — and underutilized — procedural mechanisms in Indian criminal law: the power of a court or quasi-judicial authority to itself initiate a criminal complaint against a person who has committed perjury, fabricated evidence, or submitted a false affidavit in proceedings before it.

The matter is not a simple procedural inquiry. It involves a careful intersection of:

• The definition of "court" for purposes of BNSS Section 229,
• The jurisdictional competence of revenue authorities under Karnataka law,
• The procedural machinery of BNSS Section 379,
• The ingredients of the substantive BNS offences triggered by a false affidavit, and
• The strategic implications for a respondent seeking to expose and prosecute a dishonest appellant.

This opinion addresses each layer with precision.

1. Statutory Framework — The Two Pillars
2. BNSS Section 229 (Corresponding to erstwhile CrPC Section 195)

BNSS Section 229 creates a statutory restriction on private parties directly filing criminal complaints for certain categories of offences. Specifically, Section 229(1)(b)(ii) BNSS provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Chapter XIV of BNS (relating to offences against public justice — including false evidence, fabricating evidence, and use of false documents) when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court, except on a complaint in writing made by that court.

The critical provision for the present query is Section 229(3)(a) BNSS, which defines "court" expansively:

"Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act.

This is the statutory foundation of the entire analysis.

1. BNSS Section 379 (Corresponding to erstwhile CrPC Section 340)

BNSS Section 379 is the procedural machinery that operationalises Section 229. It prescribes the precise mechanism by which a court — including a revenue court — may conduct a preliminary inquiry and thereafter make a complaint to a First Class Magistrate for prosecution of the offender.

III. Legal Position — Do Karnataka Revenue Authorities Qualify as "Courts" under BNSS 229(3)(a)?

This is the most nuanced question in your query and demands careful analysis, particularly with respect to the five authorities you have listed.

1. Deputy Commissioner (DC) — Revenue Court

The Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules functions as the principal revenue authority for land disputes, appeals, and revenue-related adjudication. The DC sits in appellate capacity over Assistant Commissioner orders and exercises original jurisdiction in several revenue matters.

Assessment: The DC unambiguously qualifies as a Revenue Court within the meaning of BNSS Section 229(3)(a). The KLRA grants the DC adjudicatory powers with trappings of judicial character — recording of evidence, taking affidavits, examination of witnesses, and passing orders enforceable under revenue law. The DC's proceedings are judicial or quasi-judicial in nature, and submissions made before the DC in the course of such proceedings are squarely "proceedings in court" for BNSS purposes.

BNSS 379 is fully applicable to proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

1. Assistant Commissioner (AC)

The Assistant Commissioner similarly exercises first appellate or original revenue jurisdiction under the KLRA. Proceedings before the AC — including appeal hearings, mutation inquiries, partition proceedings — are quasi-judicial in character.

Assessment: The AC qualifies as a Revenue Court for BNSS 229/379 purposes. A false affidavit submitted in appeal proceedings before the AC falls squarely within the mechanism.

BNSS 379 is applicable.

1. Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR), Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR), Regional Joint Director of Land Records (RJDLR)

This is where the analysis becomes more nuanced and deserves independent evaluation.

The Directorate of Land Records in Karnataka performs functions primarily of survey, settlement, measurement, and maintenance of land records under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Records (Maintenance and Updation) Act. These authorities exercise functions that are largely administrative and regulatory in character — demarcation of boundaries, survey corrections, RTC (Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops) entries, and related matters.

However, in certain proceedings — particularly dispute resolution between competing claimants over survey records, boundary disputes under Sections 128-133 KLRA, or mutation contestation matters — these officers may assume quasi-judicial character by recording statements, taking affidavits, and passing orders affecting parties' rights.

Assessment:

• If an affidavit is submitted in the course of a contested quasi-judicial proceeding before ADLR/DDLR/RJDLR where rights are adjudicated, there is a credible argument that such proceedings constitute proceedings before a "court" or at minimum a "tribunal constituted under a State Act" — which is expressly included in BNSS 229(3)(a).
• However, if the proceeding is purely administrative or ministerial (e.g., correction of a clerical error in land records), the characterization as "court" becomes contestable.

Strategic advice: In the Karnataka context, any application under BNSS 379 should preferably be moved before the DC or AC, who have stronger judicial character, and the false affidavit in question should be contextualized as having been filed in proceedings before that court. The Land Records officers have a stronger standing if their role in the specific proceedings approximated judicial adjudication.

1. The Procedure Under BNSS Section 379 — Step by Step

The procedural pathway is structured, sequential, and requires careful execution. Here is the precise legal architecture:

Step 1 — Application by Respondent to the Revenue Court

The respondent (i.e., the aggrieved party in the revenue appeal) files a formal written application before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, bringing to the court's notice that the appellant has:

• Filed a false affidavit,
• Made false and fabricated statements in the pleadings/appeal,
• Committed an offence under Chapter XIV of BNS (specifically BNS Section 229 or 230) in or in relation to the pending proceedings.

Important: The respondent cannot directly approach the Magistrate's court for prosecution of such an offence. Under BNSS Section 229(1)(b), cognizance by a criminal court is permissible only on the complaint of the revenue court itself — not on a private complaint. This is a bar to cognizance, not merely a procedural irregularity.

Therefore, the respondent's application is best understood as invoking the jurisdiction of the revenue court to exercise its power under BNSS Section 379 — not as a complaint to the Magistrate.

Step 2 — Revenue Court's Preliminary Consideration

Upon receipt of the application, the DC/AC considers whether a prima facie case exists for inquiry. The court may:

• Examine the application and supporting documents,
• Call for the record of the revenue proceedings,
• Compare statements in the affidavit with other documentary evidence on record,
• Call upon the opposite party (the appellant) to show cause or explain.

At this stage, the court is forming a preliminary opinion as to whether an inquiry is warranted.

Step 3 — Preliminary Inquiry Under BNSS Section 379(1)

BNSS Section 379(1) provides that when it appears to a court, either on application or otherwise, that a relevant offence has been committed in or in relation to proceedings before it, the court may hold a preliminary inquiry into the matter, or may direct a subordinate officer or Magistrate to make such inquiry.

The inquiry under BNSS 379 is not a full-scale trial — it is a preliminary satisfaction exercise. The court examines:

• Whether the statements in the affidavit are demonstrably false,
• Whether such falsity was intentional (as opposed to mistaken),
• Whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice.

The standard applied is not proof beyond reasonable doubt at this stage — it is prima facie satisfaction.

Step 4 — Court's Decision and Complaint

After the inquiry, the court records its opinion. Two outcomes are possible:

1. 
   If satisfied that an offence has been committed and prosecution is in the interest of justice — the court shall make a complaint in writing to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is signed by the presiding officer of the revenue court (i.e., the DC or AC). This is the formal criminal complaint that sets the Magistrate's machinery in motion.
2. 
   If not satisfied — the court may decline to make a complaint. This order may be challenged by the aggrieved party before the appropriate appellate authority or High Court.

Step 5 — Proceeding Before the First Class Magistrate

Upon receipt of the complaint made by the revenue court:

• The First Class Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 223(b) BNSS,
• The Magistrate may examine the complainant (the revenue court's representative or the presiding officer),
• Process (summons/warrant) is issued to the accused (appellant in the revenue case),
• The case proceeds as a regular criminal trial for the offence of giving false evidence (BNS Section 229) or fabricating evidence (BNS Section 230).

1. Strategic Analysis — Evidentiary Strength and Practical Considerations
2. Strength of the Application

The strongest applications under BNSS 379 are those where the falsity of the affidavit is documentarily demonstrable — i.e., where records in possession of the revenue authorities themselves contradict what the appellant has sworn to. In revenue matters, this typically arises where:

• The appellant falsely claims possession, occupation, or payment of revenue contrary to RTC entries or EC (Encumbrance Certificate) records,
• The appellant denies a transaction or relationship that is reflected in registered documents,
• The appellant makes false claims about the nature of land use contrary to survey records.

The more the false statement can be exposed through the official records already on file before the revenue court, the stronger the application.

1. The Court's Discretion

It must be noted that BNSS Section 379 uses the expression "may hold a preliminary inquiry" — conferring discretion upon the court. However, once the court is satisfied after inquiry, the language shifts: it shall make a complaint. This creates an important legal position — the decision to initiate inquiry is discretionary, but once prima facie satisfaction is reached, the complaint becomes mandatory.

If the DC/AC declines to hold inquiry despite a compelling application, the respondent has the remedy of challenging such refusal before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or through a writ of mandamus.

1. Parallel Criminal Strategy

It is worth noting that the BNSS 379 route operates in addition to, and not in exclusion of, other criminal remedies. Depending on the factual matrix:

• If the false affidavit is accompanied by a forged document, a direct FIR for BNS 336/340 (forgery) is maintainable before the police without going through the BNSS 379 route, since the bar under BNSS 229 applies only to offences committed in relation to proceedings in court — not to independent acts of forgery preceding or outside the proceedings.
• A private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 223 BNSS for forgery or cheating (if the affidavit was used to defraud in a manner extending beyond the court proceedings) may be independently maintainable.

This dual-track analysis is strategically important and requires careful factual calibration.

1. Immediate Steps Recommended

From the respondent's standpoint, the following steps should be taken with deliberate precision:

1. 
   Preserve and compile documentary contradictions — Identify every specific statement in the appellant's false affidavit and corresponding official revenue record that directly contradicts it. The application must be built on documentary contrast, not assertion.
2. 
   Draft a structured application under BNSS Section 379 — The application should: (a) summarize the false statements with specific paragraph references; (b) compare them with contradicting official records; (c) identify the specific BNS offence(s) (mentioning BNS Section 229/230 explicitly); (d) request the court to hold a preliminary inquiry and thereafter make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate.
3. 
   File the application before the DC/AC as an interlocutory application within the existing revenue proceedings — so that the same court before which the false affidavit was filed can take cognizance of its own record.
4. 
   Obtain certified copies of all relevant revenue records (RTC, EC, survey records, mutation entries, prior orders) to substantiate the falsity.
5. 
   Consider a parallel legal notice to the appellant recording the specific false statements made — creating a paper trail of prior notice before any settlement or disposal of the revenue appeal.

VII. Practical Reality Check

A few ground-level realities deserve honest mention:

• Revenue courts are often administratively burdened, and the BNSS 379 mechanism — while legally sound — requires a presiding officer who is willing to exercise this power. It is not routinely invoked, and the quality of the application and the specificity of the documentary proof significantly influence the court's decision.
• The remedy is powerful but not instantaneous. The preliminary inquiry itself may take several weeks to months in a busy revenue court.
• The First Class Magistrate's cognizance, once taken, creates immediate and significant pressure on the accused — as a criminal case for perjury/false evidence carries imprisonment implications and reputational consequences.
• If the false affidavit was submitted in an appeal that is still pending, the BNSS 379 application may also strategically demonstrate bad faith of the appellant to the very court hearing the appeal — thereby influencing the ultimate outcome of the revenue proceedings themselves.

VIII. Strategic Recommendation — Elite Perspective

The BNSS 379 route is one of the most strategically powerful tools available to a party victimized by a deliberately dishonest opponent in revenue proceedings, precisely because:

It does not require the respondent to independently establish guilt. It requires only that the revenue court — which already has the record before it — be persuaded to look at it squarely and forward its own complaint.

The psychological and litigation pressure created by a First Class Magistrate's process against a party who has filed a false affidavit is disproportionately high relative to the effort required. It simultaneously:

• Undermines the credibility of the appellant's entire case in the revenue proceedings,
• Exposes the appellant to criminal liability for perjury,
• Creates settlement leverage,
• Signals to all parties that the respondent is neither passive nor uninformed.

The intersection of BNSS 379 with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act's quasi-judicial architecture is a strategically underutilised space — and a knowledgeable respondent who moves this mechanism promptly and correctly holds a significant litigation advantage.

Dear Client,

Yes, Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) can apply to the Deputy Commissioner (DC) and Assistant Commissioner (AC) when they act as quasi judicial courts under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, because BNSS 215 defines “Court” to include such statutory authorities discharging adjudicatory‑functions; it may also cover Assistant Director, Deputy Director, and Regional Joint Director of Land Records only when they are exercising adjudicatory powers (e.g., recording evidence or deciding disputes), not purely administrative roles. In such cases, if an appellant files an appeal with false claims, false statements, or a knowingly false affidavit, the respondent can file an application under BNSS 379 praying for a preliminary enquiry into offences affecting the administration of justice.

The DC or AC must then apply judicial mind, record reasons, and conduct a limited inquiry; if satisfied that there is a prima‑facie case of intentional falsehood material to the case, the Authority has to make a written complaint and forward it to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), who will then conduct the criminal trial under BNSS. The revenue court does not itself decide the criminal guilt but acts as the “complaint making court” under BNSS 379, while simultaneously continuing or conditioning the revenue‑proceedings as per the merits.

I hope this helps and if you have any further issues do not hesitate to contact us.

It is  common for Revenue Authorities (like an AC or DC) to focus entirely on the main land dispute and simply "forget," overlook, or deliberately ignore a side application like a perjury complaint under Section 379 of the BNSS..But a Court cannot simply leave an interim application completely unaddressed or hidden from the record. When they do, whether by omitting it from the order sheet or passing a final order on the main case without touching your application, it is treated as a "Deemed Refusal."

Under the law, you do not need a written, formal rejection order to file an appeal. The silence, non-mention, or setting aside of your application operates as a refusal. Section 380 of the BNSS (which corresponds to Section 341 of the old CrPC) explicitly grants you the statutory right to appeal a refusal.

In this situation the rule is that  any  person whose application under Section 379 has been refused can appeal to the Court to which that Revenue Court is ordinarily subordinate.

You can file an appeal before the AC court, if it is ignored then you can approach DC court, if it is ignored there also then your appeal lies before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) or the Regional Joint Director (JDLR).

The higher court has the power to examine the records, reverse the lower court's silence, and either directly draft and submit the criminal complaint to the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) themselves, or order the lower officer to conduct the enquiry immediately.the Revenue Court went ahead and passed a final order in the main case while leaving your fraud application completely unaddressed, you can file a a regular revenue appeal against the final order (before the DC, KAT, or via a Writ Petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Karnataka), depending on which officer passed the final order. 

If you take this route to the High Court of Karnataka, the High Court has incredibly broad powers. It can remand (send back) the case to the DC/AC with a strict directive to dispose of the BNSS 379 application first within a fixed timeline (e.g., 30 days). Alternatively, under its inherent powers, the High Court can look at the blatant fraud itself and directly order its own registrar to file a complaint with the Magistrate.