- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 22746 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. C. GANESH NARAYAN S/O LATE MR.C.V. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO. 44, OSBORNE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560042. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.N.PHANEENDRA, SR.COUNSEL FOR KUM. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01 2. KESHAV KUMAR ADULT FATHERS NAME SURESH SINGH NO.10, GROUND FLOOR, ALPINE ARCH, 22/1, LANGFORD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560025. 3. SANJU THAPA ADULT NO. 10, GROUND FLOOR, ALPINE ARCH, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 22/41, LANGFORD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.HITESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI.MANDEEP KALRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD 17.02.2023 FILED BY THE R2 AND 3, BEFORE THE R1, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint, FIR in Cr.No.15/2023 of Commercial Street police station and consequent case registered in C.C.No.57961/2023, on the file of 29th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is a reputed businessman and the Director of C Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd ('Company' for short), engaged in business of jewellery located in 'B' Block of The Touchstone Building, wherein C. Ganesh Narayana HUF is the sole and absolute owner of property situated in 'B' Block. 3. Petitioner, his mother Smt Valli Narayan, ("The Narayans") along with his family members, viz, Dr C.Vinod Hayagriv, Sri. C.V.Hayagriv, Mrs C.Triveni Vinod, Smt. C. Visala Hayagriv and Sri. Shreyas.V.Cotha ("The Hayagrivs") run a jewellery business in the name of C Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd in 'A' Block of Touchstone Building. C. Ganesh Narayana HUF, is the owner of said property. Several differences have cropped up between Narayan's, and Hayagriv’s. In this background Hayagriv’s are in the habit of filing false and frivolous suits - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 and proceedings against Narayan’s to threaten and harass them. 4. On 16.02.2023, it came to the knowledge of petitioner that the Hayagriv’s have set up a CCTV camera in petitioner’s property facing the entrance to petitioner's store. When he tried to get it removed, respondent Nos.2 and 3 for no reason began to threaten him and his employees not to remove the same. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not employed by the company or the petitioner. They are the employees of Hayagriv’s. At the instance of Hayagriv’s, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 began harassing the petitioner and further restrained him from removing the CCTV set up in his property. They attacked and abused a group of petitioners employees viz Drivers and Property Manager near the security cabin of HUF property. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are guards of Eagle Security Agency. They also threaten the petitioner that he should not enter the store of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd, of which he is a Director and entitled for lawful - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 entry and that they have instructions from Sri Vinod Hayagriv to restrain the petitioner from entering the 'A' Block property. Respondents began to take videos of petitioner to mock him. In order to protect his privacy, petitioner attempted to cover his face and to stop the respondents from taking his videos. It enraged the respondents. They started abusing and attempted to push and assault him. 4.1 Earlier i.e., in the month of April 2018 also, the security guards committed similar offence and he has filed complaint in Cr.No.68/2018 and it is pending. In December 2019, Sri. Vinod Hayagriv attempted to trespass into the petitioner's premises and a complaint is filed. On 21.01.2023, Sri. Vinod Hayagriv filed O.S.No.1265/2023 against petitioner. It is partly decreed. Against it MFA.No.2343/2025 is filed and the said order is partly modified. The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him urging the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 GROUNDS (a) The complaint is filed at the behest Hayagrivs'. The jewel business in the name and style Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd is run in 'A' Block by Narayans' and Hayagrivs', whereas the business in the 'B' Block is run by Narayans' alone. Several differences have cropped up between Narayans' and Hayagrivs'. The Hayagrivs' are in the habit of filing false and frivolous suit and proceedings against Narayans'. (b) The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He is a law abiding citizen. There are no substantial grounds warranting filing of complaint by respondent Nos.2 and 3. On the other hand they trespassed into the petitioner's property and restrained him. They have filed false complaint at the behest of Hayagrivs'. The ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 427, 504, 506, r/w Section 34 IPC are not attracted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 (c) So far as electronic evidence is concerned, certificate under Section 35B is not produced. The material object i.e., torn shirt is not produced. No wound certificate are produced. All the witnesses are employees of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd. One of the witness Rajdeep Das has also filed a complaint in Cr.No.44/2023 to further harass the petitioner. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and hence, the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned Senior counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Order Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (Pepsi Foods)1 (ii) Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors. (Mehmood)2 (iii) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI. (Sunil Bharti Mittal)3 1 (1998) 5 SCC 249 2 (2015) 12 SCC 420 3 (2015) 4 SCC 609 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 (iv) Anjaneya Reddy and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka (Anjaneya Reddy)4 6. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 - State would submit that the business of Sri.C. Krishnaiah Chetty and the properties were divided between Hayagrivs' and Narayans' through registered partition deed dated 30.11.1986. In the said partition, the property which is called as Touchstone Building was also divided between them. In fact they together constructed the existing building and after the construction, the property fallen to the share of petitioner is called as 'B' Block and the other half fallen to the share of Hayagrivs' is called as 'A' Block of Touchstone Building. Both of them are running jewellery business in the name and style of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd and Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd, respectively. 4 Crl.P.No.9078/2024 Dt.27.09.2024 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 6.1 They would further submit that the common area situated in front of both blocks is common for both businesses. Accordingly, the Hayagrivs' had fixed CCTV camera on their portion. On the date of incident, petitioner tried to remove the same and when prevented by respondent Nos.2 and 3, they were abused and assaulted. This is recorded in the CCTV footage. Accordingly, complaint is filed and after conducting detailed investigation, charge is filed. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. The allegations made against the petitioner are required to be proved at trial. In the light of substantial material available on record including ocular evidence of the witnesses, the present petition is not sustainable and pray to dismiss the same. 7. To show that petitioner is also involved in similar case, respondent No.2 has produced order in W.P.No.10923/2023 in C.Ganesh Narayan and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Ganesh Narayan)5, wherein 5 W.P.No.10923/2023 dated 22.04.2024 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the writ petition filed by petitioner and his wife to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.44/2023 of Commercial Street P.S, Bengaluru. 8. Heard arguments and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that a partition has taken place between petitioner and his brother by which they have partitioned ancestral and joint family properties, including the business run in the name and style of Sri.C Krishnaiah Chetty Jewellers. It appears after the partition, petitioner is running the business in the name and style of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd, whereas his brother C.V Hayagriv is running business in the name and style of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner is also claiming that he is one of the Director of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd and it is a HUF business and as such he is also the owner of business - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 in the name and style of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd. 10. In this background it is necessary to examine whether there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. It is the definite case of the prosecution that on 16.02.2023, petitioner tried to remove the CCTV camera fixed in the front portion of 'A' Block and it was objected to and to prevented by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and scuffle took place and petitioner assaulted them. Based on the complaint filed by them, case was registered and after detailed investigation charge sheet is filed against the petitioner. The evidence collected by the instigation officers includes CCTV footage of the incident. There are also eye witness including respondent Nos.2 and 3. It may be true that as on the Director of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd, petitioner is one of the owner of business run in 'A' block. However, there are limitations. Whether he was justified in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 attempting to remove the CCTC camera is a matter for appreciation of evidence at the trial. It is the defence available to the petitioner at trial. As of now there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. In the light of the fact that several Civil and criminal litigation fought between the parties, there is bad blood between them and consequently motive for the petitioner to commit the alleged offences. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a joint complaint is filed by respondent No.2 and 3. Having regard to the fact that they are security guard in all probabilities the complaint is by the Hayagrivs'. Mere fact that the complaint is in typed form would not reduce its evidentially value. It is to be seen whether complainants are able to speak about the contents thereof. The veracity of the complaint could be ascertained by their cross-examination. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 and circumstances of the present case. In the light of the material placed in the charge sheet, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) It is made clear that the trial Court shall proceed with the matter without being influenced by the observations made during the course of this order. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50