- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3476 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BDA BDA, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 020, 2. MR. N.A. HARIS, CHAIRMAN BDA, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE EAST, BDA COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE, 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE EAST, BDA COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE. 5. THE ASSTISTANT ENGINEER BANGALORE EAST, BDA COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE. PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 5 ARE PRESENTLY AT: K.U.I.D.F.C, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SYED IBRAHIM, SON OF MR. SYED ABBAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 7/42, SOUTH CROSS STREET NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 047. 2. MR. MOHAMED AFTAB SDC TOWN PLANNING SECTION BDA, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE (ABSENT); R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PCR NO. 10004/2025 BEFORE THE 42ND ADDL. ACMM AT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE - C, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners, the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority, the Chairman and other officers of the Bangalore Development Authority stand at the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a private complaint in PCR.No.10004/2025. 2. Heard Sri. M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Ajay Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The first respondent is the complainant. A private complaint comes to be registered against these petitioners alleging that they had demolished the complainant's schedule property i.e., Shop No.31/1 at Neelsandra, Viveknagar Post, Bangalore. The petitioners are said to have performed the duties in their official capacity. The complainant had challenged the said act of the petitioners allegedly performed demolishing the property of the complainant. The shop that was unauthorisedly constructed and standing in the property of the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 BDA had challenges the said action in WP.No.20527/2025. Withdraws the said writ petition on 22.07.2025. The prayer sought and withdrawal is as follows: "Learned counsel for petitioner fules a memo seeking to withdraw the petition, reserving liberty to challenge the order dated 17-3-2025 passed by the 1st respondent/Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority. Liberty so sought is granted. Petition is disposed as withdraw. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed." The auction of the property subsequent to the demolition of the property belonged to the Bangalore Development Authority. After withdrawal of the subject petition, the complainant registers a complaint drawing all and sundry of the Bangalore Development Authority right from the Commissioner to the Assistant Executive Engineer as accused by registering a private complaint. 4. The learned Magistrate issues notice to these petitioners without even looking into the fact whether the officers in their official capacity, who have performed the duties of demolishing of a property of unauthorised construction and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 putting up the said property belonging to the BDA for auction has directed replies to be given by these petitioners. 5. In the normal circumstance, this Court would not entertain the petition. At this stage, where a reply ought to be given by the accused before the concerned Court and the concerned Court in the event of taking of cognizance, reserving liberty to those accused to approach the Court. The circumstance in the case at hand is entirely different. The very institution of the private complaint ought not to have been entertained in the peculiar facts of this case, as the petitioners have only performed their duties, as the property belonged to the BDA and the complainant was squatting over the property unauthorisedly. The shop is demolished, the property is put to auction, the crime is registered. If this cannot become a classic illustration of abuse of the process of the law, I do not find any better illustration. In the light of the said circumstance, permitting the private complainant to proceed any further, would result in miscarriage of justice. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant after registering the complaint has remained absent throughout. A Co-ordinate Bench on 24.04.2026 had passed the following order: "The matter is taken on being mentioned in the light of urgency. The matter is adjourned from yesterday to today, at request of the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents is not present when the matter is called out. The legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the complainant stated to have approached the Police Authorities as an informant and Police Authorities having not taken any action, he has filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, it is submitted that the complainant who was the informant before the Police Authorities had filed PCR No.10369/2025. It is submitted that, learned Trial Judge, before whom the complaint was filed took note of the request of the complainant for reference for investigation under Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has grossly erred in proceeding to take cognizance invoking Section 223 of BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that the procedure to be followed where the Police Authorities do not take action is by filing application before the Jurisdictional Court under Section 175(3) of BNSS,2023 and the Magistrate after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under Section 173(4) of BNSS, and after making such enquiry and considering the submission made by the Police Officer, is required to order investigation. It is submitted that the Magistrate had no power to take cognizance directly and has not noticed the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 change in the procedure as stipulated under the provisions of BNSS,2023. In light of the contention raised, the matter requires consideration. The contention raised by Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Magistrate has no power to entertain the PCR, goes to the root of the matter. In light of the same, the matter requires consideration. There would be stay of further proceedings in PCR No.10004/2025, on the file of 42nd Additional ACMM at Bangalore, till the next date of hearing. List after ensuing summer vacation, 2026." Even on that day, the complainant was not present. 7. On 03.07.2026 this Court passed the following order: "Heard Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent-complainant. A co-ordinate Bench, by a detailed order, has granted an interim order of stay. Awaiting his appearance, list the matter on 17.07.2026. In the event, he would not be present, the petition would be answered on hearing learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Interim order subsisting would continue till the next date of hearing." - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010161232026 NC: 2026:KHC:36717 CRL.P No. 3476 of 2026 Even on that day, the complainant was not present. 8. Even today, the complainant is not present. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners are heard and the aforesaid order is passed. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in PCR.No.10004/2025 pending on the file of 42nd Additional ACMM at Bangalore stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20