- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 27052 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAVIKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD SON OF MR.RAJENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT: A 602, CONFIDENT AQUILA, YAMERE, SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE 562125 EMAIL: RAVIKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASSAD@GMAIL.COM PH: 91 9880175670 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAVIKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD, PARTY-IN-PERSOJN) AND: 1. BIOFI MEDICAL HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF INDIA WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE LOCATED AT PLOT 208, BOMMASANDRA JIGANI LINK ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA BOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU 560105 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 2. PAULDURAI SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SHANMUGAM #3/61, THIRUMALAPURAM, RAMANATHAPURA, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 SIVAGIRI, TIRUNELVLELI TAMILNADU 627760. 3. GIRIMAJI SATHYANARAYANA RAO RAVI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O GIRIMAJI VENKAT RAO S. RAO #1629, 31ST CROSS, 18TH MAIN MANJUNATHA TEMPLE, BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU 560070 4. SHANKAR SURYANARAYAN S/O T. SURYANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS #319, 6TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR BENGALURU 560038. 5. D.N.PRAHLAD S/O D NAGARAJACHAR AGED 70 YEARS #1, SETLUR STREET, LANGFORD TOWN BENGALURU 560025. 6. R. AMBARISH S/O HEDATHALE RAMASASTRY AGED 69 YEARS FORMER DIRECTOR @ BIOFI R @ DEAUVILLE APARTMENTS #19, CHRUCH STREET BENGALURU 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESHA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. V. SANJAY KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. ASHOK B, PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF Cr.PC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 21/06/2025, 15/07/2025, 29/07/2025, 11/08/2025, 12/08/2025 AND 28/08/2025 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 1916 OF 2024 PENDING BEFORE THE LXXXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-87, COMMERCIAL COURT AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The Petitioner in-person is before the Court, seeking the following prayer: "i) To conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of CrPC, examining the documentary proof in respect of the perjury committed by the accused and in exercise of the powers under Section 195(1)(b) to initiate proceedings against the person(s) responsible for providing false statements, fabrication of documents with deliberate, conscious nature and obstructed the administration of justice. I humbly request the Hon'ble Court to pass the necessary Orders under section 340(1)(a) and further, 340(1)(c) to jurisdictional magistrate court to take cognizance under Section 193 of the IPC. ii) I pray to this Hon'ble Court to exercise 340(1) (b) make a complaint thereof in writing its findings of the false statements, fabrication of documents with the intention of obtaining a stay order, destroying all evidence and selling most of the assets during the court proceedings in WP15170/2021 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. iii) I pray to this Hon'ble Court to Pass any other or futher order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 2. Heard the petitioner in-person, Sri. Lokesh R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri. V. Sanjay Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Sri. Ashok B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Sri. Deepak Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner was before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2310/2024. Therefore, the facts that are obtaining in the said appeal are to be paraphrased as facts necessary for consideration of the subject lis, which reads as follows: "This matter is listed for consideration on IA.No.1/2024 for stay and IA.No.1/2025 for direction and the challenge is made before this Court with regard to the passing of the order on maintainability passed by the trial Court and hence, taken up the matter for final disposal. 2. The Party in person in his arguments vehemently contends that the trial Court while dismissing the complaint though passed the orders on maintainability, fails to consider the documents which have been placed before the Court which are marked as Ex.P1 to P44 and none of the documents have been considered by the trial Court and also passed an order on point "whether he has made out the prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons?". Reasons assigned by the trial Court are also erroneous. Having extracted the earlier order passed on IA.No.16 in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and para No.9 was extracted and in para No.10 comes to the conclusion that in view of the reasons assigned in para 9 it is sufficient to say that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 complainant cannot maintain the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The complainant produced no documents to prove that he has challenged the order dated 06.01.2023. In the said order this Court no where inferred that accused persons herein have tendered false evidence and also comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the Court was not challenged and instead documents as per IA.No.1/2025 and the very party in peson himself has filed a civil suit before the Anekal Court and sought the relief in respect of the said document and earlier obtained an order of temporary injunction and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial Court to consider the applications on merits and the trial Court also considering those applications on merits ordered to return the plaint and the said order is also challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition and the writ petition is also pending before this Court." 4. The petitioner was before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on a particular circumstance. The circumstance was that the petitioner had projected before the concerned Court of Session in Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 of forgery of a particular document placed before the said Court. On the orders of maintainability, the said Court had rejected the petition. The prayer that is sought in the said Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024, is as follows: "ORDERS ON ΜΑΙΝΤΑΙNABILITY The complainant named above has filed this Memorandum of compliant under Section 340 of Cr.P.С., 1973 r/w Scc. 195 of Cr.P.C. and Sec. 193 & 34 of the IPC requesting with the following prayer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 i) To conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of CrPC, examining the documentary proof in respect of the perjury committed by the accused and in exercise of the powers under Section 195(1)(b) to initiate proceedings against the person(s) responsible for providing false statements, fabrication of documents with deliberate, conscious nature and obstructed the administration of justice. I humbly request the Hon'ble Court to pass the necessary Orders under section 340(1)(a) and further, 340(1)(c) to jurisdictional magistrate court to take cognizance under Section 193 of the IPC. ii) I pray to this Hon'ble Court to exercise 340(1)(b) make a complaint thereof in writing its findings of the false statements, fabrication of documents with the intention of obtaining a stay order, destroying all evidence and selling most of the assets during the court proceedings in WP15170/2021 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. iii) I pray to this Hon'ble Court to Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The reasons rendered for disposing the said Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 by the concerned Court, is as follows: "10. The reasons recorded by this court in paragraph-9 above is sufficient to say that the complainant cannot maintain the present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The complainant produced no documents to prove that he has challenged the order dated 06.01.2023 in Com. A.A.No. 197/2021. In the said order this court no where inferred that the accused persons - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 herein have tendered false evidence and therefore, they are liable to be punished for perjury 11. It is further pertinent to note that the order passed on I.A.No. 16 in Com. A. A. No.197/2021 is also not challenged by the complainant. The complainant is keep- on filing successive applications for the same relief in the garb of different procedures of perjury. Since this court has rejected I.A. No.16 filed by the complainant in Com. A.A. No.197/2021 the same is binding upon the court as well as the parties to the litigation. The said application was decided on merits and therefore, principles of constructive res-judicata is certainly applicable to the present criminal Misc. Petition. Viewed from any angle, the complainant made out no valid grounds to proceed against the accused persons. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 12. Point No. 2 : For the foregoing reasons, the court to proceed to pass the following; ORDER The petition filed under section 340 of Crpc.,1973 R/w section 195 of Cr.P.C. and Sec.193 & 34 of the I.P.C against the accused persons is hereby dismissed." 6. This is called in question before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 25.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.2310/2024 allows the appeal filed by the present petitioner and issues certain directions. The reason so rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.2310/2024, is as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 "5. The learned counsel also submits that this Party in person is having a habit of filing successive applications or complaint before the Court and harassing the respondents and also submits that the observations made in the earlier order is also only for recovery of money and not initiating of criminal proceedings. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that earlier also many private complaints were filed and challenged before this Court and this Court also stayed the proceedings and multiple cases are registered against the respondents and hence, the trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration, passed the impugned order. 6. Having heard the party in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court in dismissing the petition, the points that would arises for the consideration is that: i) Whether the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024? ii) What Order? 7. Having perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that Party in person has filed memorandum of complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. r/w under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and Section 193 and 34 of IPC with a prayer to conduct an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. examining the documentary proof in respect of perjury committed by the accused in exercise of the power under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C to initiate proceedings against the persons responsible for providing false statements, fabrication of documents with deliberate conscious nature and accepted the administration of justice and hence led the Court to invoke Section 340 of Cr.P.C., and also the second prayer sought in the application and also the third prayer and also summed up in para No.2 that the accused persons deliberately made false statements in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and hence, they are held liable for perjury and also noted that having registered a criminal miscellaneous case, an enquiry was conducted. The complainant was examined himself as PW.1 and filed the affidavit and documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P44. It is important to note that when the complaint was registered, the enquiry was conducted and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 also the documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P44, though it is titled as orders on maintainability, but proceeded with regard to the case on merits whether the complainant has made out prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons. The trial Court fails to consider the grounds which have been urged and when the case was registered and allowed the complainant to enter into the witness box and examined the complainant as PW.1. 8. Having perused the orders also, except referring the order passed in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and extracting the para No.9 of the order passed on IA.No.16 in para No.9 of the impugned order, in the para Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order comes to conclusion that the complainant produced no documents to prove that he has challenged the order dated 06.01.2023 in the order passed on Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and having perused the earlier order also application was filed under Section 193 and Section 200 of IPC and comes to a conclusion that the said order was not challenged and the application was decided on merits and therefore, principles of constructive res judicata is certainly applicable. 9. The trial Court carried away with the earlier order passed on IA.No.16 in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and admittedly the said order was not challenged before the Court and instead of challenging the said order, the complainant also filed the present Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Even the trial Court also failed to consider the scope of the Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. By considering the same and once the case was registered and allowed the party in person to lead evidence and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P44, nothing is considered on merits and not on the case of maintainability. Title is on maintainability in the order, but the point for consideration is whether there is a prima facie case and it appears that the trial Court is under confusion whether it is an order on maintainability or on the merits and while considering the material also nothing is discussed with regard to Ex.P1 to P44 which have been placed before the Court on enquiry with the complaint and produced the same and fails to take note of the said fact into consideration. None of the documents are considered when passing such an order and when the very provision - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 under Section 340 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is invoked ought to have taken note of said fact into consideration while passing the order. 10. Having perused the provision under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is very clear that when upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary enquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, sub- clause (a) to (e) could have been taken note of and nothing is discussed in the impugned order. 11. While considering the case when the very provision of Section 340 was not discussed in the order impugned and also not discussed anything in the order relating to documents Ex.P1 to P44 which have been marked by the party in person and the trial Court only proceeded in an erroneous approach extracting the earlier order passed on IA.No.16 and the very scope and ambit of invoking of Section 340 was not considered by the trial Court hence, matter requires to be set aside and remand back to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh and question of maintainability does not arise once the case was registered and allowed the party/complainant to enquire into the matter and mark the documents and though point for consideration was framed whether the complainant made out a prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons nothing was discussed in the order about the documents marked. Hence, in view of the observations made by this Court, consider the matter afresh. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 22.06.2024 in Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 passed by the LXXXVI - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-87) is set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court. iv) The party in person and respondents are directed to appear before the trial Court on 05.06.2025 without expecting any notice." 7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allows the appeal of the petitioner, sets aside the order dated 22.06.2024 passed in Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 and remits the matter back as observed and directs the parties to appear before the trial Court on 05.06.2025. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in-person and the respondents have appeared before the Court and the proceedings are on. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner in-person has again knocked at the doors of this Court on the score that the respondents are using a particular interim order that was granted or the pendency of criminal petitions before the said Court in projection of their defence. 9. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has become final. The order directs the concerned Court to redo the exercise afresh after hearing the parties. The hearing is on. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 At the time of hearing, without a decision being rendered by the concerned Court in Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024, after the remittance at the hands of this Court, the petitioner in-person cannot project piecemeal grounds and approach this Court every now and then. 10. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Court after the proceedings are closed whole hog pursuant to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, failing which, all the grounds that are considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while remitting the matter back are being agitated before this Court now. It would amount to this Court sitting an appeal over an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which circumstance cannot be countenanced. 11. In that light, reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora in the event the concerned Court would conclude the proceedings in terms of the order passed by the Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34970 WP No. 27052 of 2025 12. The petitioner in-person would be free to project the submissions projected before this Court before the concerned Court. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21