Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravikumar Rajendraprasad vs M/S Biofi Medical Helathcare India ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17237
CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2310 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVIKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O MR. RAJENDRAPRASAD
R/AT. A602, CONFIDENT AQUILA
YAMERE VILLAGE, SARJAPUR ROAD
Digitally signed BENGALURU-562125
by DEVIKA M PHONE : +91 9880175670
Location: HIGH [email protected]
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR RAJENDRAPRASAD, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. M/S BIOFI MEDICAL HEALTHCARE
INDIA PRIVATE LTD.
LOCATED AT PLOT 208
BOMMASANDRA JIGANI LINK ROAD
INDUSTRIAL AREA, BOMMASANDRA
BENGALURU-560105.
REP. BY CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
MR. PAULDURAI SHANMUGAM
S/O SHANMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT #405, B BLOCK ND PASSION
APTS, HARALURU ROAD
KUDLU VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560068
Email ID : [email protected]
Phone No. + 91 9731500776/7411002963.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17237
CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024
2. MR. PAULDURAI SHANMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O SHANMUGAM
# 3/61, THIRUMALAPURA
RAMANATHAPURA, SIVAGIRI
TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU-627760
Email ID: [email protected]
Phone no:+91 9731500776/7411002963.
3. MR. GIRIMAJI SATHYANARAYANA RAO RAVI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O GIRIMAJI VENKAT RAO
SATHYANARAYANA RAO
# 1629, 31ST CROSS, 18TH MAIN
MANJUNATHA TEMPLE, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560070
Email ID : [email protected]
Phone no : + 91 9980012455.
4. MR. SHANKAR SURYANARAYAN
FORMER CO-FOUNDER, CEO
S/O T. SURYANARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
# 319, 6TH MAIN, 3RD CORSS
NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR
BENGALURU 560038
Email id : [email protected]
Phone no : + 91 9900219527.
5. MR. D.N. PRAHLAD
S/O D. NAGARAJACHAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
# 1, SETLUR STREET, LANGFORD TOWN
BENGALURU-560025
Email id : [email protected]
Phone no : +919845017988.
6. MR. R. AMBARISH
S/O HEDATHALE RAMASASTRY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
FORMER DIRECTOR @ BIOFI
R@ DEAUVILLE APARTMENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17237
CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024
# 19, CHURCH STREET
BENGALURU-560001
Phone No: + 91 9880570417
Email ID : [email protected]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R4
SRI. V. SANJAY KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R3
SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADV., FOR R5 & R6
R1 IS SERVED
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/DTD:24.3.2025)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 341 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 380
BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.06.2024 IN COM CRL.MISC.NO.1916/2024 DATED
22.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU AT PER ANNEXURE-A. REINSTATE
CRL.MISC.NO.1916/2024, DIRECTING THE LEARNED JUDGE TO
HEAR THE APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT UNDER SEC.340 AND
195(1)(b) CR.PC ON ITS MERITS AND PROCEED BASED ON
THE FACTS ON RECORD. INITIATE SUO-MOTO CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR
MISLEADING THIS HONBLE COURT CO-ORDINATE BENCHES,
AND SUBORDINATE COURTS WITH FALSE SUBMISSIONS AND
FOR MISREPRESENTING COUNSEL'S ARGUMENTS AS COURT
OBSERVATIONS, THUS CREATING BIAS ACROSS VARIOUS
PROCEEDINGS & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for consideration on IA.No.1/2024 for stay and IA.No.1/2025 for direction and the challenge is made before this Court with regard to the passing of the order on -4- NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 maintainability passed by the trial Court and hence, taken up the matter for final disposal.
2. The Party in person in his arguments vehemently contends that the trial Court while dismissing the complaint though passed the orders on maintainability, fails to consider the documents which have been placed before the Court which are marked as Ex.P1 to P44 and none of the documents have been considered by the trial Court and also passed an order on the point "whether he has made out the prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons?". Reasons assigned by the trial Court are also erroneous. Having extracted the earlier order passed on IA.No.16 in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and para No.9 was extracted and in para No.10 comes to the conclusion that in view of the reasons assigned in para 9 it is sufficient to say that complainant cannot maintain the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The complainant produced no documents to prove that he has challenged the order dated 06.01.2023. In the said order this Court no where inferred that accused persons herein have tendered false evidence and also comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the Court was not challenged and instead -5- NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 of challenging the said order invoked the provisions under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The said application was decided on merits and therefore principle of constructive res judicata is certainly applicable to the present Criminal miscellaneous petition and hence dismissed the same.
3. Party in person also vehemently contends that the very approach of trial Court is erroneous as the trial Court though in the orders referred, did not look into the 44 documents which have been placed before the trial Court and carried away with the earlier order passed by the Court on an application filed under IA.No.16 and hence it requires interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 filed detailed objection statement and also contends that the trial Court order is well reasoned order. Earlier an application IA.No.16 in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 was dismissed and same was not challenged till date and apart from that, even Com.A.A. No.197/2021 was dismissed on merits and the same is challenged before the Court and the same is pending for consideration. The learned counsel also submits that though an application is filed for summoning the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 documents as per IA.No.1/2025 and the very party in person himself has filed a civil suit before the Anekal Court and sought the relief in respect of the said document and earlier obtained an order of temporary injunction and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial Court to consider the applications on merits and the trial Court also considering those applications on merits ordered to return the plaint and the said order is also challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition and the writ petition is also pending before this Court.
5. The learned counsel also submits that this Party in person is having a habit of filing successive applications or complaint before the Court and harassing the respondents and also submits that the observations made in the earlier order is also only for recovery of money and not initiating of criminal proceedings. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that earlier also many private complaints were filed and challenged before this Court and this Court also stayed the proceedings and multiple cases are registered against the respondents and hence, the trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration, passed the impugned order. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024
6. Having heard the party in person and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court in dismissing the petition, the points that would arises for the consideration is that:
i) Whether the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024?
ii) What Order?
7. Having perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that Party in person has filed memorandum of complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. r/w under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and Section 193 and 34 of IPC with a prayer to conduct an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. examining the documentary proof in respect of perjury committed by the accused in exercise of the power under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C to initiate proceedings against the persons responsible for providing false statements, fabrication of documents with deliberate conscious nature and accepted the administration of justice and hence led the Court to invoke Section 340 of Cr.P.C., and also the second prayer sought in the application and also the third prayer and also summed up in para No.2 that the accused persons deliberately made false -8- NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 statements in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and hence, they are held liable for perjury and also noted that having registered a criminal miscellaneous case, an enquiry was conducted. The complainant was examined himself as PW.1 and filed the affidavit and documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P44. It is important to note that when the complaint was registered, the enquiry was conducted and also the documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P44, though it is titled as orders on maintainability, but proceeded with regard to the case on merits whether the complainant has made out prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons. The trial Court fails to consider the grounds which have been urged and when the case was registered and allowed the complainant to enter into the witness box and examined the complainant as PW.1.
8. Having perused the orders also, except referring the order passed in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and extracting the para No.9 of the order passed on IA.No.16 in para No.9 of the impugned order, in the para Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order comes to conclusion that the complainant produced no documents to prove that he has challenged the order dated 06.01.2023 in the order passed on Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 having perused the earlier order also application was filed under Section 193 and Section 200 of IPC and comes to a conclusion that the said order was not challenged and the application was decided on merits and therefore, principles of constructive res judicata is certainly applicable.
9. The trial Court carried away with the earlier order passed on IA.No.16 in Com.A.A.No.197/2021 and admittedly the said order was not challenged before the Court and instead of challenging the said order, the complainant also filed the present Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Even the trial Court also failed to consider the scope of the Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. By considering the same and once the case was registered and allowed the party in person to lead evidence and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P44, nothing is considered on merits and not on the case of maintainability. Title is on maintainability in the order, but the point for consideration is whether there is a prima facie case and it appears that the trial Court is under confusion whether it is an order on maintainability or on the merits and while considering the material also nothing is discussed with regard to Ex.P1 to P44
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 which have been placed before the Court on enquiry with the complaint and produced the same and fails to take note of the said fact into consideration. None of the documents are considered when passing such an order and when the very provision under Section 340 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is invoked ought to have taken note of said fact into consideration while passing the order.
10. Having perused the provision under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is very clear that when upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary enquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, sub-clause
(a) to (e) could have been taken note of and nothing is discussed in the impugned order.
11. While considering the case when the very provision of Section 340 was not discussed in the order impugned and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 also not discussed anything in the order relating to documents Ex.P1 to P44 which have been marked by the party in person and the trial Court only proceeded in an erroneous approach extracting the earlier order passed on IA.No.16 and the very scope and ambit of invoking of Section 340 was not considered by the trial Court hence, matter requires to be set aside and remand back to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh and question of maintainability does not arise once the case was registered and allowed the party/complainant to enquire into the matter and mark the documents and though point for consideration was framed whether the complainant made out a prima facie case to proceed against the accused persons nothing was discussed in the order about the documents marked. Hence, in view of the observations made by this Court, consider the matter afresh.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 22.06.2024 in Com.Crl.Misc.No.1916/2024 passed by the LXXXVI
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17237 CRL.A No. 2310 of 2024 Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (CCH-87) is set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court.
iv) The party in person and respondents are directed to appear before the trial Court on 05.06.2025 without expecting any notice.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34