- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1725 CRL.P No. 7607 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7607 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: RAJESH G PRABHU S/O LATE NARAYANA PRABHU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT SRIVARI VAISHNAVI, BEHIND TUMBE RESIDENCY, MORGANS GATE, MANGALORE - 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION, MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE MADHAVA SHETTIGAR, AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT KELASIBETTU HOUSE, HALEYANGADI VILLAGE AND POST MANGALORE TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 574 146. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI. J.T. GIREESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.730/2023 (CR.NO.140/2021 OF MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 307, 504, 302 OF IPC AND SECTION 30 OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. - II COURT, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1725 CRL.P No. 7607 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner-accused seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.730/2023 arising out of Crime No.140/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 307, 504 and 302 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, on the file of the JMFC – II Court, Mangalore, D.K. District and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the owner of M/s. Vaishnavi Express Cargo Private Limited, while respondent No.2-complainant, who is employed as a Manager under the petitioner in the said company. On 05.10.2021, the petitioner’s son, Sudhindra Prabhu got injured and ultimately expired as a result of an incident that took place involving the petitioner, respondent No.2 and two persons viz., Ashraf and Chandrahasa, resulting in respondent No.2-complainant filing the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1725 CRL.P No. 7607 of 2023 instant complaint against the petitioner, which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.140/2021 against the petitioner-accused for the alleged offences. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1- police authorities conducted investigation and filed the impugned charge sheet, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though respondent No.2 initially filed a complaint on 05.12.2021 in the afternoon without naming the petitioner or anyone else, the said complaint was not registered as an FIR by respondent No.1. However, subsequently, respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint at 5:30 p.m. on 25.12.2021, which is registered as FIR in Crime No.140/2021. In this context, it is relevant to state that apart from the fact that no explanation, whatsoever, is offered by respondents as to why they did not take any steps pursuant to the earlier complaint dated 05.12.2021, which did not contain necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences, the second complaint given after a lapse of more than 15 days on 25.12.2021 at 5:30 p.m., is clearly an after thought and contains improvements without there being any supporting material in this regard. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1725 CRL.P No. 7607 of 2023 5. In Prateek Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & others – (2024) 5 SCR 74 and Tarak Dash Mukherjee and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others – Crl.A.No.1400/2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal)No.503/2020 dated 23.08.2022, the Apex Court has held that it is impermissible in law to file multiple FIRs/complaints, especially when vague and bald allegations are made in the earlier complaint and the same is sought to be improved upon in the second complaint. It is also relevant to state that a perusal of the material on record comprising of the FIRs, statements of witnesses and other material is sufficient to come to the conclusion that necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences have not been made out against the petitioner. At any rate, in the incident that took place prior to the impugned FIR, the petitioner was unfortunate to tragically lose his son, Sudhindra Prabhu and respondent No.2 – complainant is none other than the manager working under the petitioner, who was the owner of the aforesaid company. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1725 CRL.P No. 7607 of 2023 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.730/2023 (arising out of Crime No.140/2021 of respondent No.1- Police), pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangalore, D.K. District, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11