Allowed¶53

Sri N Nanjundaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2025CRL.P/5993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of private complaint PCR and S.156(3)-triggered FIR against Chairman of co-operative credit society; absence of Priyanka Srivastava mandatory affidavit; bald, vague, omnibus allegations; no specific allegation against Accused No.2 in body of complaint; bar on dual/parallel/simultaneous prosecution; pending Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 with KPIDFE Act offences; cryptic, laconic, non-speaking 156(3) reference order; Om Prakash Ambadkar 2025 INSC 139; S.482 CrPC inherent powers; IPC Ss.120B, 166A, 419, 420, 468; FIR Crime No.209/2020 CID investigation; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in PCR No.11705/2020 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto quashed qua the petitioner. ¶53

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in PCR No.11705/2020 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto quashed qua the petitioner.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in PCR No.11705/2020 and FIR Crime No.209/2020 qua the petitioner are maintainable in the absence of the requisite supporting affidavit mandatorily required in law as per Priyanka Srivastava, and in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

The second respondent-defacto complainant had neither approached the jurisdictional police station nor filed the mandatory affidavit as required and held in Priyanka Srivastava; the complaint also contained no specific allegations against the petitioner, only bald, vague and omnibus allegations. The impugned proceedings qua the petitioner therefore deserve to be quashed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

In the entire complaint there is not a single allegation of commission of any offence by the petitioner – Accused No.2, who is said to be the Chairman and is not referred to in the body of the complaint; the allegations are directed against Accused No.3 (President) and Accused Nos.10, 17 and 18. The impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – Accused No.2 deserve to be quashed.

¶41

Key takeaways

Since proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 for the instant alleged offences along with KPIDFE Act offences were already pending with the petitioner arraigned as an accused, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offences by way of two/dual/parallel/simultaneous proceedings; the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also.ratio¶42
The learned Magistrate erred 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 reasons, which is not sustainable in law in the light of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139; the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this score also.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.) allowed the Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings in PCR No.11705/2020 (pursuant to FIR Crime No.209/2020, investigated by CID) for offences under Ss.120B, 166A, 419, 420 and 468 IPC qua the petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.2 (Chairman of Accused No.1 Society). Grounds: (i) the defacto complainant had neither approached the jurisdictional police station nor filed the mandatory affidavit required as per Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 4 S.C.R. 108; (ii) the complaint contained only bald, vague and omnibus allegations and not a single allegation against the petitioner, who is not even referred to in the body of the complaint; (iii) the petitioner was already arraigned as an accused in pending Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 (same offences along with KPIDFE Act offences), and cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offences by dual/parallel/simultaneous proceedings; (iv) the Magistrate's order dated 22.10.2020 referring the complaint under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. was cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned, unsustainable in law per Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139; and (v) the complainant is cited as a witness in the pending Special Court cases, so continuance would be an abuse of process.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5993 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI N NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, R/A BRIGADE GATEWAY APARTMENT, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 055

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P S AND INVESTIGATION BY CID REP BY THE SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE 560001

¶14

SMT. INDIRA T W/O SRI MOHAN VELU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, 2^ND CROSS, MUDDAMMA GARDEN EXTENSION, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU 560 046 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. TEJESH.P., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PCR NO.11705/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 166-A, 419, 420, 468 OF IPC FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT), (CCH-1), BENGALURU WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXUER B AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶23

(i) Quash the proceedings of the PCR No.11705/2020 filed by the respondent No.2 for the offences 120B, 166A, 419, 420, 468 of Indian Penal Code pending before the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Bangalore (CCH-1) which is herewith produced as Annexure B.

¶24

(ii) Quash the FIR in Crime No.209/2020 for the offences 120B, 166A, 419, 420 and 468 of India Penal Code filed by the respondent No.1 police i.e., Basaveshwaranagar Police and presently investigation by the CID which is herewith produced as Annexure – A and trial by the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court) at Bengaluru (CCH-1).

¶25

(iii) Pass such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶29

HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶30

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant filed a private complaint in PCR No.11705/2020 before the learned Magistrate for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 166(a), 419, 420 and 468 IPC by arraigning the petitioner as accused No.2 along with 18 other accused persons including Sree Kanava Souharda Co-operative Credit Limited as accused No.1 to the said complaint. By order dated 22.10.2020, the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the 1^st respondent – police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and an FIR in Crime No.209/2020 was registered against the petitioner – accused No.2 and other accused persons, pursuant to which the final report has been filed by the 1^st respondent and the matter is pending before the Trial Court.

¶31

It is contended by the petitioner that in the absence of requisite affidavit as mandatorily required in law as held in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others – (2015) 4 S.C.R. 108 , the impugned proceedings in PCR

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶33

No.11705/2020 were not maintainable and deserve to be quashed.

¶34

It is also contended that the learned Magistrate committed an error in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing the impugned cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without any application of mind and without assigning any reasons for such reference for investigation, which is not sustainable in law in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others – 2025 INSC 139. It was also pointed out that even prior to the impugned proceedings in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 166(a), 419, 420 and 468 IPC along with offences punishable under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 (for short, the KPIDFE Act’), earlier proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 are pending before the Special Court in which the petitioner is also arraigned as an accused person and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. It was further submitted that the complainant herein as already been cited as one of the witnesses in the said Spl.C.No.191/2021 and 192/2021 and even otherwise, he would be interrogated during investigation in the said

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶36

proceedings and on this ground also the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record clearly indicates that prior to filing the instant private compliant in PCR No.11705/2020, the 2^nd respondent – defacto complainant had not approached the jurisdictional police station and had not filed the mandatory affidavit as required and held in Priyanka Srivastava’s case supra. It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the aforesaid complaint in PCR No.11705/2020 will indicate that except bald, vague and omnibus allegations, no specific allegations or instances of commission of offences by the petitioner, who is said to be the Chairman of the accused No.1 – Society are forthcoming and the same are conspicuously absent in the complaint. Further, there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner – accused No.2 was responsible or liable for commission of the alleged offences; on the other hand, all the allegations are directed against accused No.3 –

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶41

President and accused Nos.10, 17 and 18 without specific reference to the petitioner, who is said to be the Chairman of the accused No.1 – Society; in fact, while it is stated in the cause title to the complaint that petitioner is the Chairman, there is neither any allegation nor even a reference to the petitioner / Chairman or is any offence alleged against him in the entire complaint. In other words, in the entire complaint, there is not a single allegation of commission of any of the offences by the petitioner – accused No.2, who is said to be the Chairman and is not referred to in the entire body of the complaint. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – accused No.2 deserve to be quashed.

¶42

The undisputed material on record also indicates that even prior to the impugned complaint filed by respondent No.2, proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 in relation to the instant alleged offences along with offences under KPIDFE Act are pending before the Special Court, in which the petitioner has also been arraigned as an accused person; it follows therefrom that the petitioner can’t be prosecuted twice for the same offences by way

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:12799 CRL.P No. 5993 of 2023

¶45

of two / dual / parallel / simultaneous proceedings and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶46

A perusal of the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate will indicate that the learned Magistrate committed an error in referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by passing the impugned cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without any application of mind and without assigning any reasons for such reference for investigation, which is not sustainable in law in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash’s case supra and the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this score also.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct in his submission that the respondent No.2 – complainant herein is cited as a witness in Spl.C.Nos.191/2021 and 192/2021 before the Special Court and even otherwise, since he can be interrogated during the course of investigation / further investigation in the said pending cases, continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶48