N Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

N Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in PCR No.11218/2020 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto qua the petitioner (accused No.2) are quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings in PCR No.11218/2020 (and connected proceedings) qua the petitioner are maintainable, given the absence of the mandatory affidavit contemplated in Priyanka Srivastava and the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner. +3 more

Court's answer

Before filing the private complaint in PCR No.11218/2020, respondent No.2 (defacto complainant) had neither approached the jurisdictional police station nor filed the mandatory affidavit as required and held in Priyanka Srivastava; consequently the impugned proceedings are not maintainable qua the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Except bald, vague and omnibus allegations, there is not a single allegation of commission of any offence by the petitioner (accused No.2, said to be Chairman of accused No.1 Society), who is not even referred to in the entire body of the complaint; therefore the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

Key takeaways

Since proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 in relation to the same alleged offences (along with KPIDFE Act offences) are pending before the Special Court with the petitioner arraigned as an accused, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offences by way of dual/parallel/simultaneous proceedings; on this ground also the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.ratio¶42
The learned Magistrate committed an error in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind or assignment of reasons, which is not sustainable in law in the light of Om Prakash Ambadkar (2025 INSC 139); the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this score also.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS) by the Chairman (accused No.2) of Sree Kanava Souharda Co-operative Credit Limited seeking quashing of proceedings in PCR No.11218/2020 (offences under Sections 120B, 166A, 419, 420 and 468 IPC) instituted on a private complaint by respondent No.2, referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by order dated 22.10.2020, leading to FIR in Crime No.217/2020 (Basaveshwaranagar P.S., investigation by CID). Held, allowing the petition qua the petitioner: (1) the complainant had neither approached the jurisdictional police nor filed the mandatory affidavit required as held in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 4 S.C.R. 108; (2) the complaint contains no specific allegation against, or even a reference to, the petitioner, all allegations being directed at accused Nos.3, 10, 17 and 18; (3) earlier proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 (same offences plus KPIDFE Act offences) are already pending with the petitioner arraigned, so dual/parallel prosecution for the same offences is impermissible; (4) the Magistrate's Section 156(3) reference order dated 22.10.2020 is cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned, contrary to Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139; and (5) the complainant being a cited witness in the pending Special Court cases, continuation would be an abuse of process. Operative order quashes PCR No.11218/2020 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto qua the petitioner only.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned proceedings in PCR No.11218/2020 (and connected proceedings) qua the petitioner are maintainable, given the absence of the mandatory affidavit contemplated in Priyanka Srivastava and the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner.medium confidence¶33
The court held
Before filing the private complaint in PCR No.11218/2020, respondent No.2 (defacto complainant) had neither approached the jurisdictional police station nor filed the mandatory affidavit as required and held in Priyanka Srivastava; consequently the impugned proceedings are not maintainable qua the petitioner.ratio¶38
2.
Whether the learned Magistrate's order dated 22.10.2020 referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., being cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned and passed without application of mind, is sustainable in law.medium confidence¶46
The court held
The learned Magistrate committed an error in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind or assignment of reasons, which is not sustainable in law in the light of Om Prakash Ambadkar (2025 INSC 139); the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this score also.ratio¶46
3.
Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the same alleged offences in the impugned proceedings while Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 involving the same offences and the same petitioner are already pending before the Special Court.medium confidence¶45
The court held
Since proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 in relation to the same alleged offences (along with KPIDFE Act offences) are pending before the Special Court with the petitioner arraigned as an accused, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offences by way of dual/parallel/simultaneous proceedings; on this ground also the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.ratio¶42
4.
Whether continuation of the impugned proceedings, where the complainant is cited as a witness in the pending Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021, amounts to an abuse of process of law warranting interference.medium confidence¶47
The court held
Since respondent No.2 (complainant) is cited as a witness in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 and can be interrogated during investigation/further investigation in those pending cases, continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court.ratio¶47