Dismissed¶¶41

Sri G. Madan Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025CRL.P/7064/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition for quashing FIR Crime No.73/2022 (Sadashivanagar PS, now with CCB WPW Squad) alleging cheating of Rs.86 lakhs for a management-quota medical seat; petitioner claimed he was not 'Madan @ Mahadevarao', accused No.2; Court held identity question is for investigation, not decidable in the petition; statutory duty to investigate not to be interfered with; petitioner may submit material to IO before final report; Sections 506, 504, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; petition dismissed (Mohammad Nawaz, J., 12-03-2025).

What did the court decide?

The contention that the petitioner is not the said Madan @ Mahadevarao cannot be accepted at this stage. ¶¶35

Sri G. Madan Mohan Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.73/2022 and the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed on his contention that he (G.Madan Mohan) is not the 'Madan @ Mahadevarao' named in the complaint. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

The contention that the petitioner is not the said Madan @ Mahadevarao cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The question whether the petitioner is the same person who was introduced by accused No.1 to the complainant is a matter which has to be investigated and cannot be decided in this petition.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation into the allegations cannot be interfered with; it is for the Investigating Officer to verify the petitioner's claim and file a necessary report.ratio¶¶39
It is always open to the petitioner to place all material before the Investigating Officer in support of his contention, which must be taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer before filing the final report.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Mohammad Nawaz, J.) dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.73/2022 of Sadashivanagar Police Station (offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC), arising from allegations that about Rs.86,00,000/- was obtained under the pretext of securing a medical seat for the complainant. The petitioner's plea that he was not the 'Madan @ Mahadevarao' arraigned as accused No.2 was held to be incapable of acceptance at that stage, the question of identity being a matter for investigation and not decidable in the petition. The Court declined to interfere with the statutory duty of the police to investigate while the investigation remained pending, leaving the petitioner free to place all his material before the Investigating Officer, to be considered before filing of the final report. I.A.No.1/2023 was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10555 CRL.P No. 7064 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7064 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G. MADAN MOHAN S/O LATE SRI K.G. GUNASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.203, NANDINI LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, PUTTENAHALLI CIRCLE, J.P. NAGAR 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P. RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, WOMAN'S PROTECTION WING, SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION, SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶16

SRI SANKETH KUMAR SURUVASE S/O SRI SHANKAR BABURAO SURUVASE, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT MENTHENGALLI, HANUMAN TEMPLE ROAD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:10555 CRL.P No. 7064 of 2023

¶19

HALANDHA TALUK, GULBARGA VILLAGE, GULBARGA DISTRICT-585 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR FILED IN CR.NO.73/2022 BY SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU AND NOW ENQUIRING BY THE CCB (WPW SQUAD) WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED AS MADAN INSTEAD OF MADAN @ MAHADEV RAO AS PER THE COMPLAINT PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.73/2022 of Sadashivanagar Police Station, for offences punishable under Section 506, 504, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶27

The complainant, Sanket Kumar Suruvase, son of Shankar Baburao Suruvase, has alleged that the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- to be given in four installments to provide a medical seat.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10555 CRL.P No. 7064 of 2023

¶29

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 initially received Rs.18,00,000/-, followed by Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-, while an additional sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was received by Accused Nos. 1 and 3, thereby totalling Rs.86,00,000/-, which was obtained under the pretext of securing a medical seat to the complainant, however, cheated the complainant and his father.

¶30

It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case, there is no nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence and the complainant is totally a stranger to the petitioner. He contended that in the complaint the name of one Madan @ Mahadevarao is mentioned whereas, the petitioner is not the said person, the name of the petitioner is G.Madan Mohan and not Madan @ Mahadevarao. He therefore contended that the entire proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court. He contended the complaint is filed with a malafide motive and in the event the investigation is

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:10555 CRL.P No. 7064 of 2023

¶33

continued against the petitioner, he will be put to great hardship.

¶34

The FIR is registered against three named accused and the officials of M.S.Ramaiah Medical College.

¶35

One Madan is arraigned as accused No.2 in the FIR. As per complaint averments, accused No.1 by name Nagaraju Siddanna by promising the complainant and his father that he will provide medical seat, introduced them to one Madan @ Mahadevarao and the said Madan @ Mahadevarao approached them and demanded a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- to provide a seat under the management quota. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is not the said Madan @ Mahadevarao cannot be accepted at this stage. The question as to whether the petitioner is the same person who was introduced by accused No.1 to the complainant is a matter which has to be investigated and cannot be decided in this petition.

¶36

As per the petition averments, petitioner was

¶37

served with a police notice and he has appeared before

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10555 CRL.P No. 7064 of 2023

¶39

the police and participated in the enquiry. Further, he was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court on certain terms and conditions. The investigation in this case is still pending. The statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation into the allegations cannot be interfered with. It is for the investigation Officer to verify as to the claim of the petitioner and file a necessary report. It is always open for the petitioner to place all the material before the investigation officer in support of his contention, which have to be taken into consideration by the investigation officer before filing the final report.

¶40

With the above observation, petition is

¶41

dismissed.

¶42

I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶44

HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 Ct:ar

Sri G. Madan Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G. Madan Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rashmi B C Vs Sri M v Venkatesh

Hasan Thouseef, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. J. Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka, Nazarbad.P.S, Devaraj Sub-Division, Mysuru City, MYSURU-01

Smt. Lakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt C G Vanajakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka