- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35073 CRL.P No. 1078 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1078 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. SUDHAKAR HEGDE S/O. SRI. KRISHNA S. HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, RESIDING AT NO.167/4, 31ST CROSS, 11TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. 2. SRI. H.B. VIKRAM SON OF SRI. B.H. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS FINANCIAL CONSULTANT, RESIDING AT C-3, BLOCK 1, JAYANTHI GARDENS, J.P. NAGAR, 1 PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YATHIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGAR P.S., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. M.S. CHOWDAIYE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.14/1, 2ND CROSS, BOHRA LAYOUT, GOTTIGERE, BANGALORE - 560 083, REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35073 CRL.P No. 1078 of 2021 SRI. D. V. RAGHU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.177/2020 OF 1st RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCS P/U/S 418, 420, 120A AND B, READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 37th ACMM, BANGALORE. 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 registration of Crime no.177/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 120A and B read with Section 34 of IPC, presently stated to be pending on file of XXXVII ACMM, Bengaluru, in pursuance of PCR no.11444/2020, this petition is filed. 2. Sri S.Yathiraj, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that petitioners were accused no.2 and 3 in Private Complaint filed by respondent no.2-complainant. It was submitted that alleged offences were in relation to a transaction involving property situated at Kannamangala village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35073 CRL.P No. 1078 of 2021 wherein, petitioners had signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 30.04.2015 and agreement of sale dated 06.08.2015 as witnesses. It was submitted that though Registry of Court of learned Magistrate had noted lack of territorial jurisdiction, as per directions issued therein, learned Magistrate had directed for registration of FIR. It was submitted that apart from ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, initiation of proceedings also suffered from illegality due to non-compliance with Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. i.e., about approaching jurisdictional police and Superintendent of Police respectively prior to filing private complaint as well as non-filing of affidavit containing material allegations against accused held mandatory by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015)6 SCC 287. Hence, impugned proceedings require to be quashed. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader would fairly submit that material on record does not indicate compliance with requirement of Section 154(3)of Cr.P.C. as well as filing of affidavit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35073 CRL.P No. 1078 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 - complainant, however, opposed petition. It was submitted that petitioners had also received money in transaction and though petition papers would not indicate compliance with requirement of law, liberty may be reserved to complainant to take such other recourse in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel. Perused material on record. 6. This Petition is by accused no.2 and 3, challenging registration of FIR in pursuance of a Private Complaint filed by respondent no.2 - complainant for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 120A and B read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. Perusal of order sheet of learned Magistrate would indicate that even after registry put up a note about want of territorial jurisdiction, without any specific traversal of same, learned Magistrate directed registration of case and investigation by PSI, Jayanagar Police Station. Though taking cognizance of offence was kept pending and requirement of filing of affidavit as per decision in Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra) was curable till taking of cognizance, complaint would - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35073 CRL.P No. 1078 of 2021 establish non-compliance with Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., which is held mandatory by Court. 8. It would indicate that allegations are in respect of a transaction of MOU/agreement of sale in respect of property situated at Kannemangala village, Bidarahalli Hobli and there appears to be no specific statement that any of cause of action accrued within jurisdiction of trial Court herein. Even on said ground impugned proceedings would require to be quashed. 9. For aforesaid reasons, Petition is allowed. Proceedings in Crime no.177/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 120A and B read with Section 34 of IPC, presently stated to be pending on file of XXXVII ACMM, Bengaluru, in pursuance of PCR no.11444/2020, are quashed qua petitioners - accused no.2 and 3 by reserving liberty to respondent no.2 -complainant to take recourse to such other remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15