- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 896 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAPRABHA D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVI W/O H.C. SHASHIKANTH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS R/AT NO.16/11, BMK LAYOUT, VITTAL NAGAR, 2ND MAIN, 9TH CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 026. 2. SMT. SATHYA PRABHA D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVI W/O H.S. RAJAGUNDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS R/AT NO.7, NHCS LAYOUT, KAVERI NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 079. 3. SMT. SWAYAM PRABHA D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVI W/O SRI. D.G. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS R/AT NO.140, 6TH CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 4. SMT. SAVITHRI D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVI W/O S.S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS R/AT NO.23, 1ST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, LINK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BY KONANKUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, HICH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. BRIJ MOHAN K.S. S/O SRI. K.L. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS AND DIRECTOR ACQUA BOREWELL PRIVATE LIMITED BREWERY HOUSE, 7TH MILE, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062 R/AT NO.11 (OLD NO.9) SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOUMYA R, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA C, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO (a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2019 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN PCR NO.12874/2019 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 05.11.2019 passed by II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in P.C.R.no.12874/2019, Annexure-A as well as registration of FIR and all further proceedings in Crime no.306/2019 by Konankunte Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 209, 109, 420, 418, 417, 415, 426 and 425 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in pursuance thereof, this petition is filed. 2. Sri Ismail M.H., learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was filed by respondent no.2 - complainant alleging that complainant was a registered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 company owning property no.19 at Brunton road of M.G. road, Bengaluru and had entered into a joint venture agreement with M/s.Prestige Estates Limited for development of property and when they intended to register lease deed and mortgage deed and approached Sub-Registrar, they noted an entry against registration on account of pendency of civil suit and operation of temporary injunction in O.S.no.4709/2019 granted by City Civil Court. Alleging that complainant had not received any notice from Court and obtaining order of temporary injunction was with malafide intention to cause damage or loss to Company, complaint was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 209, 109, 420, 418, 417, 415, 426 and 425 of IPC. 3. It was submitted, on said private complaint, learned Magistrate passed impugned order dated 05.11.2019 directing investigation by Konankunte police station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but without application of mind and merely by observing that there were serious allegations against accused. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015)6 SCC 287 mandated filing of an affidavit with material allegations as well as recording of reasons showing application of mind. It was submitted that without complying with either of said requirements, impugned order was passed. Therefore, same was required to be quashed. 4. That apart, it was submitted that para 8 of plaint indicated antecedent civil dispute with regard to property. It was also submitted allegations did not include all essential requirements for offences alleged. Under above circumstances, continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be abuse of process and therefore, sought for quashing. 5. On other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader though would oppose petition would concede to legal position in view of decision in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). None appears for respondent no.2. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 7. It is seen that in para 2 of this petition petitioners have specifically stated that private complaint filed by respondent no.2 herein was without accompanied by any affidavit containing material allegations against accused. Same would be in violation of directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 30 and 31 of Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra). 8. Besides above, contents of complaint indicate antecedent civil dispute. There is also absence of any statement that complainant had prior to filing of private complaint approached jurisdictional Police and about their refusal or failure to register complaint. Besides learned Magistrate has merely stated that there are serious allegations against accused and it was just and proper to refer matter to jurisdictional Police, would not meet requirement of law regarding application of mind. There is no assertion that allegations against accused constitute offences and would require investigation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28313 CRL.P No. 896 of 2020 9. In view of above, without testing complaint, whether discloses all necessary ingredients for offences alleged, petition would succeed. 10. Hence, Petition is allowed, order dated 05.11.2019 passed by II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in P.C.R.no.12874/2019 and all further proceedings in Crime no.306/2019 by Konankunte Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 209, 109, 420, 418, 417, 415, 426 and 425 of IPC stand quashed. 11. In view of disposal of petition, pending application also stands disposal of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9