- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7909 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4942 OF 2022 IN CRL.P No. 7909/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. RANA DUTTA (A1) S/O SRI. ADHIR DUTTA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.6 2ND FLOOR, 16TH MAIN BTM 1ST STAGE, NEAR BUS STOP TAVAREKERE BENGALURU-560 029 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SUNIL CHANDRA PAUL S/O LATE JOGESH PAUL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT GOPI NAGAR, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 WARD NO.10, PO AND PS, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT ASSAM -787 054 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.15226/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,201 AND 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC. IN CRL.P NO. 4942/2022: BETWEEN: SMT SUMITA RANI SARKAR, D/O SHRI SWAPAN SARKAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT GOPI NAGAR WARD NO. 10, PO AND PS, NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT, ASSAM. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.DHANAJAY JOSHI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 POLICE INSPECTOR, MADIWALA, POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE- 560 001. [AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.07.2022] 2 SHRI. SUNIL CHANDRA PAUL, S/O LATE JOGESH PAUL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT GOPI NAGAR, WARD NO. 10, PO AND PS, NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT, ASSAM BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.RANJAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.8872/2015 REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.15226/2017 IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners in these petitions have challenged an order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') in C.C.No.8872/2015. 2. The respondent filed P.C.R.No.8872/2015 alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC') and prayed that the case be referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the respondent, took cognizance of the offence. After considering the material placed by the respondent, the trial Court directed registration of a criminal case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and issued process to the accused. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4942/2022 submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Assam and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have issued process to the petitioner. He contends that the trial Court must have postponed the issuance of process as provided under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. He further contends that the petitioner was in no way involved in the alleged offences and even as per the private complaint, the only statement made therein was that the deceased was in love with the petitioner. He contends that this is not sufficient to issue process against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B of IPC. He therefore prays that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7909/2018 reiterated the above submissions and submitted that there was no incriminating material placed before the trial Court to take cognizance and also to issue process. He therefore prays that the proceedings against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 petitioner be quashed. He also contends that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirements as specified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - (2015) 6 SCC 287. Thus, he prays that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court after being satisfied about the evidence furnished before it by the respondent, had held that the case merits investigation. He therefore contends that on facts, the petitioners cannot challenge the discretion of the trial Court in taking cognizance and issue process. He also contends that the jurisdictional police had taken into account the suicide note and had closed the case. Therefore, he contends that the respondent could not have approached the same police again seeking their indulgence in the matter. He also contends that the failure to file an affidavit and compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C as prescribed in Priyanka Srivastava's case referred supra, should not affect the discretion of the Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the petitions cannot be entertained for the reason that the issue is still at the nascent stage and the investigation into the case is yet to happen. He therefore prays that the petitions be dismissed and the path be cleared for conducting an investigation. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4942/2022 as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7909/2018 and the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader. 9. The respondent is the father of the deceased. He has claimed that the suicide note recovered by the police is not in the handwriting of his son. He has also alleged that the accused No.1 was in possession of a computer and certain valuables belonging to the deceased. He has also stated that all the data in the computer of the deceased was wiped out from the year 2015, i.e, prior to the date of incident. He also alleged that a CCTV was installed in the room of deceased and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 that CCTV footage of 19.02.2015, 20.02.2015 and 21.02.2015 was not available. However, the CCTV footages from 22.02.2015 was available. He also stated that the deceased was in love with the accused No.3 and that the accused No.1 was also in love with the accused No.3. He also stated that accused No.2 is the roommate of the deceased and that all three of them had joined hands and had murdered the deceased. The trial Court after perusing the material, took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the respondent and issued process. 10. The contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the accused No.3 is in no way involved, cannot be decided at this stage as the trial Court is yet to go into the case. A father who has lost his son is entitled to know the real cause of the death of his son. The allegation that the mobile phone of his son was with the accused no.1 and that the data on the mobile phone was wiped out gives rise to suspicion. Likewise, the accused No.1 was bound to explain how he came in possession of the laptop and valuables of the deceased and that also had to be investigated. Further, the allegation that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 the data in the laptop was wiped out and CCTV footages were deleted gives rise to more suspicion. It is alleged that deceased was in love with accused No.3 and that accused No.1 was also in love with her makes the case more intriguing. Therefore, the trial Court was in a way justified in holding that the matter requires investigation. The accused No.2 was the roommate of the deceased and his possible involvement in the case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the trial Court was in a way justified in taking cognizance and issuing process to the accused. 11. As regards the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7909/2018, the non filing of an affidavit as prescribed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case referred supra, cannot efface the cognizance taken in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 12. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent, the police did not register an Unnatural Death Report (for short 'UDR') but had handed over the body of the deceased to the respondent in view of the suicide note. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12588 CRL.P No. 7909 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 4942 of 2022 Therefore, the respondent was justified in filing a private complaint instead of going to the higher ups of the police. 13. In view of the above, the contentions urged by the petitioners do not merit consideration. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. All contentions are left open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24