Karnataka High Court
Sri. Krishnamurthy vs Smt. Prathima on 15 April, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:15449
CRL.P No. 4841 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4841 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O MARI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O VINAYAKA BADAVANE,
3RD CROSS, MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
2. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SRI. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKAMANDYA VILLAGE,
GOPALAPURA POST
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401.
3. SMT. LINGARAJAMMA
Digitally W/O SRI. NAGARAJAMURTHY,
signed by R
HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
Location: R/O KADUKOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
High Court of
Karnataka MADDUR TAUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
4. SRI. RAMESH C,
S/O SRI ERAIAH @ SERAKKI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O CHOKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401.
5. SMT. ARUNAKSHI,
W/O SRI. NAGARAJU,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:15449
CRL.P No. 4841 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O KSRTC QUARTERS,
B.T. LALITHA NAYAK EXTENSION,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
6. SRI. NANJUNDASWAMY,
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O HEALTH DEPARTMENT QUARTERS,
DAMADAHALLI VILLAGE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 401.
7. SRI. VENKATARAMU,
S/O SRI CHIKKAVENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O NETKAL VILLAGE AND POST,
B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
8. SRI. SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O KEERTHINAGAR,
NEW EXTENSION,
MALAVALLI TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
9. SRI. SHIVASHANKAR,
(LOKASARA),
S/O SRI DODDA SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O 3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:15449
CRL.P No. 4841 of 2024
AND:
SMT. PRATHIMA
W/O SRI. G.D. SHIVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O B. GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NATARAJ SHARMA S, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO 1)
ORDER IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS, BY QUASHING THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT IN PCR NO.34 OF
2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 454, 354, 427 R/W SEC.
149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
MANDYA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 454, 354, and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
2. The respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., stating that she is running a shop in a rented premises. On 15.12.2023, at about 10:00 A.M., at the instigation of accused No.1, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:15449 CRL.P No. 4841 of 2024 accused Nos.2 to 9 trespassed into the shop premises by breaking open the lock, damaging items in the shop-- including weighing machines, computers, and CCTV cameras--and allegedly threatened the complainant and dragged her saree.
3. The Trial Court, after perusing the sole statement of the respondent, passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. In the private complaint, the respondent has averred that she had lodged a complaint with the Mandya Police Station. However, no action was taken against the accused. It is also stated that a complaint was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Mandya District, seeking action against the accused.
6. The respondent produced Ex.D1 to show that a complaint was lodged with the Mandya Police. However, no acknowledgment has been produced to establish that a complaint was filed with the Superintendent of Police in compliance with Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:15449 CRL.P No. 4841 of 2024
7. The offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable in nature. Therefore, before filing a private complaint, the respondent was required to comply with Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
8. Admittedly, accused No.3 has lodged a complaint against the respondent for misappropriation of Rs.1,72,00,000/- while she was working as the Secretary of the society in which the petitioners/accused are the Directors.
9. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 15.12.2023, whereas the private complaint was filed only on 25.01.2024. Except for the self-serving statement of the respondent, no evidence has been produced to substantiate that the petitioners/accused criminally trespassed into the shop belonging to the respondent, damaged CCTV cameras, computers, or other items kept in the shop.
10. The complaint appears to have been lodged as an afterthought to counter the FIR filed by accused No.3 against the respondent and others for misappropriation of funds belonging to the society, of which the petitioners are the Directors.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC:15449 CRL.P No. 4841 of 2024
11. The complaint was filed in a mala fide manner and without any plausible cause. In the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners, the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings C.C.No.507/2024 on the file of Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55 CT: BHK