Allowed

Sri. D. M. Suresh v. the Police Inspector

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026WP/16966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a charge sheet filed against a process server of the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, who executed a delivery warrant issued by a competent court. The court held that the petitioner, acting in his official capacity, could not be held criminally liable for executing the warrant, and that continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in CC No. 17171/2024 (Crime No. 147/2021) quashed insofar as it pertains to the petitioner.

Sri. D. M. Suresh Vs the Police Inspector — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:50318 WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010349342024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA WRIT PETITION NO. 16966 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. D. M. SURESH S/O LATE DODDAMAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT O.49, 9TH MAIN, L N PURA SRIRAMPURA BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA HALINATHOTA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE POLICE INSPECTOR BHARATHINAGARA POLICE STATION BAGNALORE - 560 005.

¶15

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE DY SP., CID BANGALORE PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

SRI A T RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE A M TARAGANATHAN AGED 57 YEARS R/AT NO.7, PUSHPA VILLA, 1ST CROSS, SARASWATHIPURA NEW EXTENSION, ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SURYA MUKUNDARAJ, APP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NARAYAN N. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:50318 WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶23

CNR: KAHC010349342024

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO I. QUASHING CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN C.C.NO.17171/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 197, 199, 200, 209, 120B, 109, 465, 468, 471, 386, 506 R/W 34 OF THE IPC DATED 29-05-2024 BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ONLY. VIDE ANN-K AND K1 REGISTERED IN BHARTHI NAGAR PS CR. NO. 147/2021 AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri.Ramachandra Halimathota, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Surya Mukundaraj, learned Additional Public Prosecution for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri.Narayan N. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is absent.

¶29

Petitioner is process server attached to the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru. While discharging his duty, he has executed a delivery warrant as allotted to him by the process nazar.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50318 WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010349342024

¶33

Respondent No.3 claims that there was

¶34

concoction of documents resulting in filing of a false HRC case and obtained delivery warrant in collusion with the present petitioner as well and lodged written complaint.

¶35

Based on the said complaint, Bharathi Nagar Police have registered a case in Crime No.147/2021 on 13.10.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶36

Registration of the case and filing charge sheet thereof is called in question in this petition on several grounds including the ground for sanction to initiate the case.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that police without there being any authority, investigated the matter and filed false charge sheet against the petitioner without obtaining the sanction to prosecute the petitioner and as such, the charge sheet needs to be quashed.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:50318 WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CNR: KAHC010349342024

¶41

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶42

would support the continuation of the criminal case as there is a role played by the petitioner as well.

¶43

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

¶44

Court noted the relevant aspects of the matter after perusal of the material on record.

¶45

Admittedly, delivery warrant was issued by duly constituted Court and it has returned unexecuted as there was resistance. The Court thereafter reissued the delivery warrant.

¶46

Petitioner herein has executed the delivery warrant as ordered by the competent Court. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the alleged offence.

¶47

Without noticing the same, police have filed the charge sheet. As such, a case is made out that continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would result in abuse of process of law.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50318 WP No. 16966 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CNR: KAHC010349342024

¶51

Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Petition is allowed .

¶54

ii. Pending proceedings in CC No.17171/2024 registered in Crime No.147/2021 by Bharathi Nagar Police Station insofar as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶55

SD/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶56

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. D. M. Suresh v. the Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. M. Suresh v. the Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases