Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8855 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC)

¶6

/ 528(BNSS)-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANMUGA SUNDARAM S/O KALIYA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, GROUND FLOOR, SHIVANNA BUILDING, H.V.HALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-98

¶9

S ANNAPOORNI W/O SRI. SUNDARESAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.811, BHEL LAYOUT EXTENSION, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-98

¶10

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. S G BHAGAVAN., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, PEENYA POLICE STATION, YESHWANTHAPURA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

GOWDA P

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶17

S/O SRI. RANGAPPA P AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.9, 2^ND CROSS, SAMBRAM NILAYA, KALAYAN NAGAR, BEHIND ST. MARYS SCHOOL T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MR. PATIL., HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.12773/2018 INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2018, THEREIN PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE, AND THE PURSUANT REGISTRATION OF THE CASE IN CRIME NO.528/2018 OF PEENYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,34,468,465,420,504 OF THE IPC IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶25

following reliefs:

¶26

a. Quash the entire proceedings in P.C.R.No.12773/2018 including the order dated 28.09.208, therein pending in the court of the IV ACMM, Bangalore, and the pursuant registration of the case in the Crime No.528/2018 of Peenya Police Station, Bangalore for the offences P/U/S 506, 34, 468, 465, 420, 504 of the IPC, in so far as the they are concerned.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶28

Respondent No.2 had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which came to be numbered as PCR No.12773/2018. The said private complaint had been filed alleging that when the complainant had approached the Jurisdictional Police, the same was registered as NCR and no action was taken and it is in that background that the complainant sought for the Magistrate to refer the matter for investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 of the erstwhile Cr.P.C. In furtherance thereof, the Magistrate vide its order dated 28.9.2018 referred the matter to the Peenya Police for investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police have registered FIR in Crime No.528/2018. It is challenging the same, Petitioners are before this Court.

¶29

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the requirement of subsection (3)

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶31

of Section 154 has not been complied with by the complainant inasmuch as if the jurisdictional police were not to register a FIR and proceed with the investigation, it was required of the complainant to approach the superior officer with the details thereof requesting the superior officer to take necessary action. The same not having been done, a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. could not have been filed which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivatsava ’s case.

¶32

Though the Respondent - Complainant has been served, there is no representation on part of the said Complainant.

¶33

A perusal of the averments made in the private complaint would indicate that the only effort which has been made by the complainant is to file a complaint before the Station House officer who has registered a NCR. Thereafter, he has directly filed a

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶35

PCR without approaching the superior authorities of the Station House officer. In that view of the matter, the above manner of proceeding by the complainant is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in Priyanka Srivatsava and anr vs. State of U.P. and ors.¹ more particularly Para Nos.26 and 27, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶36

26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.

¶37

27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility

¶38

1 AIR 2015 SC 1758

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶40

whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

¶41

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12415 CRL.P No. 8855 of 2018

¶45

ii) Proceedings in PCR No.12773/2018 pending on the file of the 4^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore as also FIR in Crime No.528/2018 registered by the Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru are quashed.

¶46

iii) Liberty is however reserved to respondent No.2 to comply with the requirements as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case (supra) and proceed.

¶47

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Shanmuga Sundaram v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmuga Sundaram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashirekha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahesh Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Sri. Rangashamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri U M Ramesh Rao Vs Sri S Dinakar Rao

Sri. Ramdas Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri S M Siddeq Vs Shri Syed Shabbir Ahmed