- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37272 WP No. 4245 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4245 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MADHUSUDAN S BALLAL S/O B. SHRINIVASA BALLAL, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDINGAT NO.108, SUMMER BLOCK, WINDSOR FOUR SEASONS APARTMENTS, BEHIND MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H M., ADVOCATE (ABSENT) ) AND: 1. SRI. N. BHADRAPPA S/O LATE NAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, 6th MAIN, 5th CROSS, MUNISWAMAPPA GARDEN, APPURAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560018. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, L AND T FINANCE LIMITED, SITE NO. 92, ZED SQUARE, JNC ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37272 WP No. 4245 of 2024 BENGALURU - 560 095. (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT) 3. SRI. GUNDAPPA S/O CHIKKARAMAIAH @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.11649, 2nd C MAIN , 8th BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGLAURU - 560 034. 4. SMT. P. AMUDHA, W/O LATE V. PERUMAL, AGED AOBUT 56 YEARS, NO.67/1, FIRST MAIN ROAD, CHIKKALAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT, D.R C POST, BENGALURU - 560 029. 5. SMT. SRIDEVI W/O LATE PURANAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.1/2, KILARI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 053 6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 27.12.2023 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN PCR NO.17428/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37272 WP No. 4245 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the dismissal of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by exercising power under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 2. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the authoritative pronouncements of the Kerala High Court in Tom Thomas v. E. Abdul Lathief and Another1 and in Krishnankutty v. Ramani and Another2, wherein an identical issue came up for consideration. In both these decisions, the Kerala High Court has categorically held that an order dismissing a complaint under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be equated to an order of acquittal. It has been further held that such an order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction, and the remedy of appeal does not lie. 1 2007 Crl.L.J. 1143 2 AIROnline 2021 Ker 1110 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37272 WP No. 4245 of 2024 3. If a complaint is dismissed under Section 203, it is obvious that the dismissal of the complaint is before appearance of the accused. Therefore, the order is revisable and petitioner cannot maintain this 482 petition. 4. Accordingly, reserving liberty to avail remedy in the manner known to law, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90