M/S Jupiter Ventures LLP Vs State of Karnataka

DR. UPENDRA KUMAR KANDLURI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SON OF DR. NAGANNA KANDLURI RESIDING AT 166A, SHOBHA MALACHITE JAKKUR PLANTATION, YELAHANKA BENGALURU 560 064.

¶12

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

¶13

DR. JOTHI NEERAJA SATYANANDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WIFE OF DR. UPENDRA KUMAR KANDLURI RESIDING AT 61, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI, 3^RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI,

¶14

BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶15

MS. ASHA DIWAKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. DIWAKAR S. DESIGNATED PARTNER OF CLAAT CORPORATE ADVISORS LLP (CHHOTA CFO), NO-50, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, EAST K.V LAYOUT, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶16

MS. PRIYANKA SETHIA (PRIYANKA SETHLA IN IMPUGNED FIR) AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DAUGHTER OF MR. K.L. SETHIA DESIGNATED PARTNER OF CLAAT CORPORATE ADVISORS LLP (CHHOTA CFO), NO-50, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, EAST K.V LAYOUT, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶20

MS. GHANISHTA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶21

WORKING FOR GAIN AT CHHOTA CFO, NO-50, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, EAST K.V LAYOUT, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R.M.C. YARD POLICE STATION PEENYA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 001

¶26

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶27

MR. DHANUNJAYA REDDY KAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SON OF K. NARASIMHA REDDY RESIDING AT: 8-3-230/A/1/408 VENKATA GIRI, SAI SPURTHY ENCLAVE HYDERABAD - 500 045.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. PAMPAPATHI.K, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA , 1950 R/W SECTION 528 OF BNSS, R/W ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 20.12.2023 IN P.C.R NO. 384 OF 2024(ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY WHEREBY THE LD. TRIAL COURT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 02.12.2023 (ANNX-A) FILED IN PCR NO. 384 OF 2024.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 17.08.2024 IN P.C.R.NO. 384 OF 2024.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶38

“ a. Set aside the order dated 20.12.2023 in P.C.R. No.384 of 2024 (ANNEXURE A) passed by the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City whereby the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the Complaint dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure B) filed in PCR No. 384 of 2024;

¶39

b. Set aside the order dated 17.08.2024 in P.C.R. No. 384 of 2024 passed by the XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City Ld. Trial Court whereby Respondent No. 1 was directed to conduct investigation (Annexure A);

¶40

c. Quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 170/2024 dated 25.09.2024 registered by RMC Yard Police Station Police Station under Sections 1208, 419 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure E);

¶41

d. Quash the complaint registered as P.C.R No. 384/2024 arising out of the complaint dated 02.12.2023 filed under Section 200 by Respondent No. 2 pending on the file of the XXXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (Annexure B); and

¶42

e. Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.SPP for 1^st respondent – Police as well as learned Senior counsel for the 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

¶47

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders dated 20.12.2023 and 17.08.2024 passed in PCR No.384/2024 as well as the impugned proceedings and FIR are illegal and contrary to law and the same deserve to be quashed. In support of his contentions,

¶48

learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

¶49

(i) Devarappalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others vs. V.Narayana Reddy and others – (1976) 3 SCC 252;

¶50

(ii) Madhao and Another vs. State of Maharastra and another – (2013) 5 SCC 615;

¶51

(iii) M/s.SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Telangana and others – Criminal Appeal No.2574/2024 (SLP (Cri) No.2123/2024;

¶52

(iv) Ashok Hanamanthappa Badami vs. The State of Karnataka and Another – Crl.P.No.100859/2028 c/w Crl.P.No.101492/2017 dated 24.03.2021;

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶54

5 -

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

(v) Priyanka Srivatsava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others – (2015) 6 SCC 287;

¶57

(vi) Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and another – (2022) 5 SCC 639;

¶58

(vii) Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat – (2015) 6 SCC 439;

¶59

(viii) Anjuri Kumari vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) & others – 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7570;

¶60

(ix) State of Karnataka by Anti Corruption Bureau vs. Smt.Gayathri Nayak – ILR 2019 KAR 767;

¶61

(x) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168;

¶62

(xi) Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90;

¶63

(xii) Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd., vs. State of Kerala – (2015) 8 SCC 293;

¶64

(xiii) Mitesh Kumar J Sha vs. State of Karnataka and others – (2022) 14 SCC 572;

¶65

(xiv) Bharatesh Reddy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan – (2022) 16 SCC 210;

¶66

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the 2^nd respondent placed reliance upon the following

¶67

judgments:-

¶68

6 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

(i) Ramesh Kumar Bung & others vs. State of Telangana & another - SLP(Crl.) No.13762/2023 Dated: 04.03.2024;

¶72

(ii) Smt. S.N. Vijayalakshmi & others vs. State By Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bangalore – Crl.P No.12452/2023 Dated: 03.06.2024.

¶73

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – complainant filed a private complaint in PCR No.328/2024 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC. In pursuance of the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences as against the petitioners even without recording sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses by passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 as under:-

¶74

ORDER

¶75

The complainant has filed this private complaint u/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to refer the complaint to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/Sec.420, 468, 471 and 465 of IPC.

¶76

The complainant has filed affidavit and documents along with his complaint. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

¶77

7 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

I have perused the contents of the complaint, the affidavit and other documents placed before me. It appears that he has lodged complaint at RMC Yard Police Station, Bengaluru as per Sec. 154(1) of Cr.P.C. The RMC Yard police have issued endorsement without registering FIR. But the complainant has not approached Superintendent of Police as per Sec. 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it makes clear that the complainant has not complied with the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & other VS State of U.P. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case to refer to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR and to conduct the investigation for the alleged offences. However, this court has ample power to proceed with the complaint as per Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. I have perused the contents of the complaint and documents produced with it. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

Cognizance of the offences is taken. Office is directed to registered this case as PCR and put up before this Court for recording the sworn statement of complainant and his witness if any.

¶83

For sworn statement.

¶84

Call on 02.02.2024.

¶85

As can be seen from the aforesaid order, having come to

¶86

the conclusion that the complainant had not complied with the requirements contained in Priyanka Srivastava’s case supra, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance and posted the

¶87

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

matter for recording of the sworn statement of complainant and his witnesses. Subsequently, the trial court passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 purporting to review its earlier order and directed the matter to be referred to the jurisdictional police authorities for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by holding as under:-

¶90

ORDER

¶91

The Complainant has filed this private complaint U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to refer the complaint to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR against the accused no.1 to 4 for the offences Punishable U/Sec. 156(3) of IPC.

¶92

The Complainant has filed affidavit and documents along with his complaint. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

¶93

I have perused the contents of the complaint, the affidavit and other documents placed before me. The complainant has narrated the steps taken by him before approaching this Court. It appears that complainant has lodged the complaint at R.M.C.Yard Police Station. But it appears that the police have not received/not taken action the complaint. The complainant has complied with Sec.154(10 and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. But the police have not taken any action based on his complaint. Therefore, it makes clear that the complaint has complied with the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Other Vs. State of U.P. Therefore, in my opinion it is a fit case

¶94

9 -

¶95

NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

to refer to the jurisdictional Police Station for registering the FIR and to conduct the investigation for the alleged offences. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following.

¶98

ORDER

¶99

Office is direct the investigation and to file Final Report.

¶100

The PSI of jurisdictional police is hereby directed to conduct the investigation.

¶101

Await Final Report.

¶102

Call on 21.09.2024.

¶103

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 2^nd respondent jointly submit that both the impugned orders dated 20.12.2023 and 17.08.2024 as well as the consequential FIR in Crime No.170/2024 dated 25.09.2024 may be set aside and the matter remitted back to the learned Magistrate for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The joint submission of both sides is placed on record.

¶104

A perusal of the impugned orders which culminated in the impugned FIR will clearly indicate that both the impugned orders suffers from various legal infirmities which are contrary to law and consequently, in the light of the joint submissions made by both

¶105

sides, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside

¶106

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26801 WP No. 30092 of 2024

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

both the impugned orders as well as the FIR and remit the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments.

¶109

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶110

ORDER

¶111

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶112

(ii) The impugned orders dated 20.12.2023 and 17.08.2024

¶113

passed in PCR No.384/2024 by the trial court as well as the consequential FIR in Crime No.170/2024 dated 25.09.2024 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC are hereby set aside.

¶114

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶115

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶116

Srl.

M/S Jupiter Ventures LLP v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jupiter Ventures LLP v. 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

Sri Hameed, Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shaikh Yunus Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.P. Vijayalakshmi Vs State by Kodigehalli Police Station

Shiabbudahin K.A. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B C Ganesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jayarama Raju Vs Sri a M Narayanaswamy Raju