- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6655 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T.K. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE KURLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 2. SMT. YELLAMMA W/O T.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. SRI. SHIVANANDA T.M, W/O T.K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 4. SRI. PRASHANTH T.M S/O T.K. MUNIYAPPA, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 5. SRI. T.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O KURLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 6. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O T.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 7. SRI. MAHESHA S/O T.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 8. SRI. MURALI, S/O T.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. (REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER) SRI. MUNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT S. THELLOHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M. MURALI BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLIANT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.26/2023 (PCR NO.430/2022) OF RESPONDENT NO.1 DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, FOR THE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 OFFENCE P/U/S.419, 420, 465, 471, 120-B, 354, 504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR and complaint registered against the petitioners, primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the complaint seeking to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C was not accompanied with an affidavit and secondly, that the learned Magistrate while directing investigation has not applied his judicial mind. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on two Judgments of this Court, one reported in 2021 (1) KCCR 1011 in the case of Sri. N.R. Ramakrishna and others -vs- State of Karnataka by Kolala Police Station and another and second, reported - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 in AIR Online 2021 KAR 213 in the case of Alam Pasha -vs- Murugesh R Nirani and others. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend, drawing the attention of the Court to para 7 in N.R.Ramakrishna (supra) that the Court cannot find fault with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, since while invoking Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, it will not amount to directing investigation not causing an injury of irreparable nature and the same cannot be quashed at a premature stage. He contended that an affidavit was filed along with the complaint and the learned Magistrate has found that there are sufficient grounds to refer the matter to the Jurisdictional Police for investigation. 4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 relying on the decision in Alam Pasha (supra) that if the Magistrate himself in exercise of powers under Section 190 of Code chooses to refer the complaint to police for investigation, requirement of filing an affidavit does not arise. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 5. In the present case, perusal of the complaint goes to show that a specific prayer was made requesting the Magistrate to refer the matter to the Jurisdictional police and to direct registration of FIR against the accused persons and to submit the final report exercising the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent has furnished copy of the affidavit filed in support of the complaint, for referring the matter for investigation. Hence, the first ground urged by the petitioners counsel hold no water. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.5891/2024 disposed on 25.09.2024. It is relevant to refer to para-8 of the said order, wherein this Court relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the order of the learned Magistrate who would refer the matter for investigation should bear application of mind. 7. It is held that the Magistrate while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C should apply - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 his judicious mind, take note of the fact whether the complaint that is presented makes out a case for directing investigation and only then direct such investigation. Mechanical reference without application of mind, would render the very action unsustainable. 8. In the present case, the order directing the Jurisdictional police to conduct the investigation is cryptic and bald as it is bereft of reasons. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. Though entire proceedings cannot be quashed, the order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) requires interference. 10. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 PCR No.430/2022 referring the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate to redo the exercise and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12629 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI. T.K.MUNIYAPPA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AND ANOTHER] 28.03.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' The learned counsel for respondents would submit that along with the complaint, a sworn affidavit was also filed on the same day. Certified copy of the sworn affidavit is furnished. The same is taken on record. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 25.3.2025. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1