Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION MICO LAYOUT SUB DIVISION BENGALURU CITY RREPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.

¶14

VISHNU PRAKASH S/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT ANDHRA INTERNATIONAL SPA BUILDING NO.25 ARADHYA COMPLEX 1ST MAIN 100 FEET RING ROAD BTM 2ND STATE BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA- 560076.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAHU RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NANDESH J T, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:16323 CRL.P No. 5303 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.265/2024 REGISTERED IN THE MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE O/P/U/S 34, 384 AND 389 OF THE IPC 1860 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri Nandesh J.T., learned counsel, files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶24

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶25

The petitioner (accused No.1) challenges the registration of the FIR in Crime No.265/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 384, and 389 of the IPC.

¶26

Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR stating that he is working as the Manager at Aadhar International Spa. On 28.6.2024, a person named Venkatesh, claiming to be the CEO of Raj News Channel, called the office telephone number of Aadhar International Spa. During the call, the petitioner allegedly stated that he was aware of the immoral activities taking place at the spa, and threatened that if the spa owner did not contact him, he would telecast a report about these activities on the Raj News TV

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:16323 CRL.P No. 5303 of 2025

¶29

Channel. On 29.6.2024, the petitioner and his co-workers reportedly placed a camera in front of the spa, and when the complainant inquired, the petitioner allegedly instructed him to call the spa owner. The CEO of Raj News then reportedly threatened the spa owner, demanding a meeting and threatening to publish news about the immoral activities at the spa unless the owner met his demands. Additionally, the petitioner allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.15 lakhs.

¶30

The parties are present before this Court and have filed a joint memo stating that they have resolved the dispute among themselves. In terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all allegations made against the petitioner, in order to maintain a cordial relationship and prevent further hostility between the parties. Respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

¶31

The joint memo is placed on record.

¶32

Although the offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and non-compoundable, considering that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, subjecting the petitioner to an investigation would serve no purpose. In light of the settlement, the likelihood of the police filing a charge sheet is remote and bleak.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:16323 CRL.P No. 5303 of 2025

¶35

In view of the above, continuing the criminal investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶36

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.265/2024, registered by the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, and pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶37

In view of the disposal of the petition, any pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶39

BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Venkatesh R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Yogitha B Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. T N Jayashankara Vs State of Karnataka

A S Gupta Vs Mr Vishwanath Dwedi

Dr. S. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

G Raghu Achar Vs the State of Karnataka

Irfan Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka by