- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 572 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. ANNAPPA C. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, RESIDING AT CHAMUNDIPURA VILLAGE, BELAGUMBA POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR - 562 159 PRESENTLY ALSO AT 2202/C11 CHURCH ROAD CHANNAPATNA 2. ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, CHAMUNDIPURA VILLAGE, BELAGUMBA POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR - 562 159 PRESENTLY ALSO AT GEETHAMANDIRA BADAVANE 3. AKASH S/O. ANNAPPA. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, CHAMUNDIPURA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 BELAGUMBA POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR - 562 159 PRESENTLY ALSO AT 2202/C11 CHURCH ROAD CHANNAPATNA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.M. SHARATHKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. IMRAN AHAMMAD, S/O. LATE NOOR AHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A. NO. 4229, K/F MUKHTHAR AHAMMAD, OPP MUNICIPAL OFFICE, NAGARA SABHE LAYOUT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CR NO.95/2025 REGISTERED BY RAMANAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION, PENDING BEFORE THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 316(2), 318(4) R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B. ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.95/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Heard Sri. G.M. Sharathkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners are accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have nothing to do with the complainant or any other investor. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 issue revolves around general public investing in a firm that is run by accused No.1, who is the brother of these petitioners. Therefore, the matter would require investigation in the least. 4. Interference at this stage and stifling investigation is not warranted in the peculiar facts of this case and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,1 wherein it is held as follows: "…. …. …. 33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence. 33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 1 (2021) 19 SCC 401 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. 33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. 33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. 33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. 33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. 33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied." (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7492 CRL.P No. 572 of 2026 5. In that light, leaving open the remedy of the petitioners to approach this Court again if the charge sheet is filed against these petitioners, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 CT:SG