SRI. PRADEEPKUMAR vs THE STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024
R

HC-KAR




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 29541 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRADEEPKUMAR,
S/O LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 617,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
SRINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 050.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)







AND:

1. THE STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA
POLICE STATION,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY SPP.

2. SMT. SEEMA H.,
W/O HARSHAD H. K @ MARISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.4, KADUMALLESHWARA,
GUEST HOUSE, BENGALURU - 560 003.
…RESPONDENTS





Digitally signed by
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN CRIME

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


NO 94/2024 AND ON THE FILE OF THE 41ST ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE;
QUASH THE FIR DATED 08.10.2024 IN CRIME NO. 94/2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE 41ST ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER PURSUANT TO NOTICE BEARING
NO.VSPS/CRIME/94/2024 DATED 16.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-
C1, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - an advocate by profession, now stands at
the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a
crime in Crime No.94/2024 against several accused in which
the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4.

2. Heard Sri.Saravana S, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP
appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material
on record.

3. Brief facts unfurled are as follows:

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


3.1. The second respondent is the complainant. The
second respondent is said to be working as Assistant
Conservator of Forest in the Department of Forest, Government
of Karnataka. On 11.08.2017, a missing complaint is registered
by father of accused Nos.2 and 3 against the complainant that
accused No.3 one Vinod V, was abducted by the second
respondent-Complainant. When the second respondent learns
about the complaint so registered, drops accused No.3 to
Bangalore from Chikkamagalur where he was detained.
Thereafter accused No.3 files a complaint against the second
respondent in Crime Nos.134 & 137/2017 against the second
respondent. The petitioner was nowhere in the picture. On
07.10.2017, a matrimonial case in M.C.No.4953/2017 is filed
before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights
alleging that the second respondent's marriage was solemnized
with accused No.3. The petitioner now comes into the picture,
files power/vakalath for accused No.3 who is the respondent in
the matrimonial case so filed by the second respondent-
Complainant in M.C.No.4953/2017. A detailed Statement of
Objections was also filed by the petitioner in favour of accused
No.3 before the concerned Court.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR



3.2. When things stood thus, a private complaint in PCR
No.30/2018 is filed by the second respondent-Complainant
against accused Nos.2 and 3 and other family members
alleging demand of dowry and abuse of the caste of the
complainant. The concerned Court on 12.07.2018, refers the
matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police when then
becomes a crime in Crime No.102/2018 for offences punishable
under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3(1)(r)(u) & (s) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities
Act' for short].

3.3. Here again, the petitioner had no role to play. He
only files vakalath in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said
private complaint and on instructions from accused Nos.2 and 3
in whose favour he had filed his vakalath, files an application
under the Right to Information Act to Sri.Vidhya Mandira School
seeking certain information about the second respondent to
place it before the Family Court. The School is said to have
furnished incomplete information which led to filing of another

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


application seeking complete information. It is then the School
is said to have furnished complete information relating to the
caste of the second respondent. Immediately thereon, comes
the impugned complaint against the petitioner and several
others for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2),
336(3) and 340 of the BNS. The complaint then becomes a
crime in Crime No.94/2024, the registration of the crime is
what has driven the petitioner-accused No.4 to this Court in the
subject petition.

4. Learned counsel Sri.Saravana S, appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that a frivolous case in
misuse of the criminal justice system is registered by the
second respondent-Complainant. The allegation in the
complaint only relates to the petitioner's appearance for
accused Nos.2 and 3 in a separate proceeding and seeking
information under Right to Information Act with regard to the
caste of the second respondent. This forms the fulcrum of the
complaint. If this is permitted to be investigated into,
particularly against the petitioner, it would on the face of it

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


become an abuse of the process of the law, is the emphatic
submission of the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
complainant would refute the submission in contending that on
the complaint, crime is registered and the moment crime is
registered, the subject petition is filed. There should at least be
investigation into the matter with regard to the role of the
petitioner which cannot be dubbed as a frivolous case. The
prayer in the writ petition itself would clearly indicate that the
petitioner-Advocate is wanting to get to know beyond what is
necessary for presentation before the concerned Court. He
would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned Addl. SPP Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, appearing
for the respondent-State would also refute the submission to
contend that the crime is registered and the moment the crime
is registered, there is an interim order of stay operating.
Therefore, the matter must be permitted to be investigated into
leaving open the remedy available to the petitioner to knock at
the doors of this Court at the appropriate time.

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record in
so far as it concerns the petitioner-accused No.4. Therefore,
those facts would not require any iteration. The role of the
petitioner in the entire episode of crime is appearing as counsel
for accused Nos.2 and 3 and seeking information about the
caste status of the complainant. The complaint comes to be
registered by the second respondent-complainant on
08.10.2024. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the
complaint, the same is required to be noticed and it reads as
follows:
“ರವ ೆ : ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.10.2024



ೕ ಸ  ಇ ೆಕ

ಾನೌಧ
ೕ ಾೆ

ಾನೌಧ

ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
8073316965


%ಾನ&'ೇ
,
ಷಯ: ನನ +ೆಸರು ನನ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಸ0ಾ1  2ಾಸ ನನ* ಸ0ಾ1  ಹು4ೆ5ಯ

+ೆಸರನು ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ %ಾ80ೊಂಡು +ಾಗೂ ನನ ಸ;ಯನು* ನಕಲು

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR



%ಾ8 ನನ ೆ ಕಳಂಕ ತಂ=ರುವವರ ರುದ> 0ಾನೂನು ಕ?ಮ0ಾAB
.
ಸ
CDದ ದೂರು
*
,
ಈ FೕಲAಂಡ ಷಯ0ೆA ಸಂಬಂ-DದಂGೆ ನನ +ೆಸರು Dೕ%ಾ +ೆH, ನನ ಹು4ೆ5
, .
ಸ+ಾಯಕ ಅರಣ& ಸಂರK ಾ-0ಾLಾBದು5 ನನ* ಸ0ಾ1  2ಾಸ Fೕ
ನಂMರುತN4ೆ
30.05.2024 , , 1
ಾನು ¢£ÁAPÀ ರಂದು ಸ+ಾಯಕ ಅರಣ& ಸಂರK ಾ-0ಾ ಸಂOೆPೕಧನ ೇ
, , , ,
ಆಡRರ ೆN ಅ'ೆಕ'ೆ, Fೖ0ೋಬTಾವ ೆ zÉÆgÉ ಾUVಾಳ& ಬ ೆ*ೕರುಘಟ ೆಂಗಳ#ನ
C
.
0ಾಯ1ವರ= %ಾ80ೊಂಡು ಾನು ನನ* ಸ0ಾ1  0ೆಲಸ Uವ1;ಸುMNರುGೆNೕ ೆ ಾನು
.
ಕ ಾ1ಟಕ ಆರಣ& ೇYೆಯ ಎ ದ[ೆ1ಯ ಜುUಯ  ಅ-0ಾ LಾBರುGೆNೕೆ

,
gÉÃ
ಾನು ನಮ] ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ; ಯ ಅ-0ಾ ಗ2ಾದ `?ೕ ಪ?bಾ  ಚಂದ?
. . . , ,
bಾ ಅ ೇ ಸ0ಾ1ರದ ಪ? ಾನ 0ಾಯ1ದ`1ಗಳd ಅರಣ& ಪ ಸರ ಮತುN eೕವOಾಸf ಇ^ಾ_ೆ

ಬಹು ಮಹ8ಗಳ ಕಟ ಡ ೆಂಗಳ#ರರವರನು* bೇg %ಾ8 ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ಸಮ ೆ&ಗಳ ಬ ೆh MiD

ಪ ಹರ ಪTೆದು0ೊಳjಲು +ೋ4ಾಗ ಸದ  ಅ-0ಾ ಯವರು ನನ* +ೆಸ ನ
C ೇ'ೆ Lಾ'ೋ
.
ಬ'ೆಯ^ಾದ ಪತ?ದ ಬ ೆh ನನ ೆ MiD kಾರೆ ನTೆD ಪ?Mಯನು* Uೕ8ರುGಾN'ೆ ಾನು
.

ಸದ  ಪತ?ವನು* N ದ^ಾB ಆ ಪತ?ದ
Cರುವ kಾರವನು ಾನು ಬ'ೆ=ರುವl=ಲC ನನ
.
zÉ
ಸ;ಯನು* ಾನು ಪ `ೕ
ಸ^ಾB ಅದು ನಕಲು ಆBರುವlದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ=ರುತN ಸದ 

ಪತ?ವನು ೇ'ೆ Lಾ'ೋ ಬಲCವರು ನನ bಾmಾ Oೈ
ಯ
C ನಮ] ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ; ಯ
. . , ,
ಅ-0ಾ ಗ2ಾದ `?ೕ ಎ 0ೆ Dಂn ಅವರ ಪ? ಾನ ಮುಖ& ಸಂರK ಾ-0ಾಗಳd ಸಂOೆPೕಧ ೆ
, ,
4ೊ'ೆ ಾUVಾಳ& ೆಂಗಳ#ರುರವರ Fೕ^ೆ ಸುಳdj ಆ ಾರರ;ತ ಆ'ೋಪ %ಾ8 %ಾನ&
, , .
`?ೕ ಈಶqರ rೕ ಖಂTೆ? ಅರಣ& ಸsವರು ಕ ಾ1ಟಕ ಸ0ಾ1ರರವ ೆ ಪತ? ಬ'ೆ=ರುGಾN'ೆ
.
ಸದ  ಪತ?ಕೂA ನನ*ಗೂ Lಾವl4ೇ ಸಂಬಂಧ ರುವl=ಲC
,
Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1  2ಾಸ 2ಾಸ 2ಾಸ 2ಾಸ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಸ0ಾ1 ಹು ಸ0ಾ1 ಹು4ೆ5ಯ ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಹು  ಹು 4ೆ5ಯ 4ೆ5ಯ 4ೆ5ಯ

+ೆಸರುಗಳನು +ೆಸರುಗಳನು +ೆಸರುಗಳನು +ೆಸರುಗಳನು ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ %ಾ80ೊಂಡು %ಾ80ೊಂಡು %ಾ80ೊಂಡು %ಾ80ೊಂಡು +ಾಗೂ +ಾಗೂ +ಾಗೂ +ಾಗೂ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8
, ,
ದುರುಪtೕಗ ದುರುಪtೕಗ ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ನನ ೆ 0ೆಟ 0ೆಟ  +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು ತರಲು ತರಲು ನನ ಘನGೆ ನನ ಘನGೆ ೌರವ0ೆA ೌರವ0ೆA ದ0ೆA ದ0ೆA ತರಲು ತರಲು
ದುರುಪtೕಗ ದುರುಪtೕಗ ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ನನೆ 0ೆಟ 0ೆಟ +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು ತರಲು ತರಲು ನನ ಘನGೆ ನನ ಘನGೆ ೌರವ0ೆA ೌರವ0ೆA ದ0ೆA ದ0ೆA ತರಲು ತರಲು
,
ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನ ನನೆ ೆ +ಾUಯುಂಟು +ಾUಯುಂಟು +ಾUಯುಂಟು +ಾUಯುಂಟು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1  0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ rØ ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ನಮ] ನಮ] ನಮ] ನಮ] ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 
.(
ಕvೇಯ ಕvೇಯ ಕvೇ ಕvೇಯ ಯ YಾGಾವರಣ YಾGಾವರಣ YಾGಾವರಣ YಾGಾವರಣ +ಾಳd +ಾಳd +ಾಳd +ಾಳd %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು ಈ ೕM ಈ ೕM ಈ ಈ ೕM ೕM ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಬ'ೆ=ರಬ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹುದು ಬ'ೆ=ರಬ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬ ಹುದು ಹುದು ಹುದು ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ ಪ?M ಪ?M ಪ?M ಪ?M
).
ಲಗMND4ೆ ಲಗMND4ೆ ಲಗMND4ೆ ಲಗMND4ೆ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ  ಪತ?ದ
C ಪತ?ದ
C ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ
C
C ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಾನ ಬೆh ಾನ ಬೆh ಾನ ಬೆh ಾನ ಬೆh ಪ?ಾNwDರುವlಂದ ಪ?ಾNwDರುವlಂದ ಪ? ಪ?ಾNwDರುವlಂದ ಾNwDರುವlಂದ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ
ఎంబ ఎంబ ఎంబ ఎంబ
Sucide
ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಹGೆ& ಹGೆ& ಹGೆ& ಹGೆ& %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8 ಅದನು ಅದನು ಅದನು ಅದನು ಎಂದೂ ಎಂದೂ ಎಂದೂ ಎಂದೂ Mರುಚಲು Mರುಚಲು Mರುಚಲು Mರುಚಲು ಈ ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇೋ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇೋ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇೋ ೋ
.
ಸಂ ಸಂ µÀ ಯ4ೆ ಯ 4ೆ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5 ಂದ Gಾವl Gಾವl ಈ ದೂರನು ದೂರನು 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು Gಾವl Gಾವl +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ ವ;D ವ;D
ಸಂ ಸಂ ಯ4ೆ ಯ4ೆ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5ಂದ Gಾವl Gಾವl ದೂರನು ದೂರನು 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು Gಾವl Gಾವl +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ ವ;D ವ;D
, ,
ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಅ ಅತು0ೊಂಡು ಅ ಅ  ತು0ೊಂಡು ತು0ೊಂಡು ತು0ೊಂಡು ತU_ೆ ತU_ೆ ತU_ೆ ತU_ೆ ನTೆD ನTೆD ನTೆD ನTೆD ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಪGೆNಹsy ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಪGೆNಹsy ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಪGೆNಹsy ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಪGೆNಹsy ಸೂ ಸೂ ಸೂ ಸೂ PÀÛ 0ಾನೂನು 0ಾನೂನು 0ಾನೂನು 0ಾನೂನು

ಕ?ಮ ಕ?ಮ ಕ?ಮ ಕ?ಮ 0ೈೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು 0ೈೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು 0ೈ 0ೈೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು ೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು ಈ ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ತಮ]
C ತಮ]
C ತಮ] ತಮ]
C
C Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನ ನನೆ ೆ ಸೂಕN ಸೂಕN ಸೂಕN ಸೂಕN ಭದ?Gೆಯನು ಭದ?Gೆಯನು ಭದ?Gೆಯನು ಭದ?Gೆಯನು
.
Uೕಡಲು Uೕಡಲು Uೕಡಲು Uೕಡಲು 0ೋ4ೆ 0ೋ4ೆ 0ೋ 0ೋ4ೆ 4ೆ

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


,
ಮುಂದುವ gÉ ದು ನನ ೆ ಈ 0ೆಳ ೆ +ೆಸ ಸ^ಾದ ವ&|Nಗಳ ಬ ೆh ಅನು%ಾನ  zÀÄÝ,
CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß wêÀæPÀgÀªÁzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀgÉ ಅಪ'ಾಧ zÀ ºÉeÉÓUÀ¼ÀÄ
.
ೋಚಸಬಹು4ಾB ನಂಬುGೆNೕ ೆ
1. .
`ವಶಂಕ  D ಆ 
#69,3 ,
£Éà PÁæ¸ï
,
ಪ}ೇ~ ಗುಂಡಪ• ಾC€
. ,
[ೆ D 'ೋ•
560006.
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
8660756414
¥sÉÆãï:

2. .
ಪ?=ೕ‚ ಕು%ಾ  +ೆH ಎ~
( )
0ಾಂ ೆ? 'ಾಜ|ೕಯ ; ೆ*^ೆ ಉಳjವರು
ªÀQîgÀÄ,
£ÀA.7/6 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ

ಚಂ4ಾವ1ಕ  ^ೇಔ„
560020.
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
9535555558
¥sÉÆãï:

3. ( . )
ೋ…  `ವಶಂಕ  D ಆ  ಇವರ ಅಣ†ನ ಮಗ
C/O .
`ವಶಂಕ 
#69,3 ,
£Éà PÁæ¸ï
,
ಪ}ೇ~ ಗುಂಡಪ• ಾC€
. ,
[ೆ D 'ೋ•
.
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
8660766414
¥sÉÆãï:



ಏ0ೆಂದ'ೆ ಇವರುಗಳನು* ಆರಣ& ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ಕvೇ ಗiೆ %ಾ;M ಹಕುA
2005
ಅ-Uಯಮ ರ ಅ8ಯ
C ಪತ? ಬ'ೆದು ನನ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ-Dದ %ಾ;Mಗಳನು*
,
ಪTೆದು0ೊಳdjMNರುವlದಲC zÉÃ ನನ* ಇ^ಾ_ಾ 4ಾಖ^ೆLಾದ ^ಾn ಬು€ =ನಚ ಗಳ
.
%ಾ;Mಗಳನು* ಪTೆದು0ೊಳdjMNರುGಾN'ೆ ^ಾn ಬು€ ಮತುN =ನಚ ಯ %ಾ;Mಗಳd
.
ಇವ ೆ ಏ0ೆ ೇ0ಾBರುತN4ೆ =ನಚ ಯ %ಾ;Mಯನು ಪTೆದು0ೊಂಡು ಇವರು ನನ
.
ಚಲನವಲನಗಳ ಬ ೆh Uಗ ಇg ರುವಂGೆ bಾಸYಾಗುMN4ೆ ಸದ  ಪ? ಾNwತ ಪತ?ದ
C ನನ*
,
ಾನ ಬ ೆh ಪ? ಾNwDರುವlದಂದ ನನ ೆ ಇವರುಗಳ ಬ ೆh +ೆಚುy ಅನು%ಾನ ದು5
. (
ಇವರುಗಳನು* Mೕವ?ತರದ kಾರೆೆ ಗುಪ8ಸೇ0ಾB 0ೋ 4ೆ 4ಾಖ^ೆಗಳd
, -20)
ಲಗMND4ೆ ಪl l ಸಂ_ೆ&

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


4. .
+ೆH 0ೆ. ಮ ಾqx
S/O Late Rtd RFO
PÁ¼ÀdªÀgÀAiÀÄå
( )
UವೃತN ವಲಯ ಅರ ಾ&-0ಾ ಆರಣ& ಇ^ಾ_ೆ
,
vÉÆæòæÃ
%ಾ Uಲಯ
,
ಸ4ಾ`ವನಗರ Gೇಜೂರು ರ ೆN
-573219.
ºÁ¸À£À
8762055569
¥sÉÆãï:


ಏ0ೆಂದ'ೆ ಇವರು ನನ* ತಂ4ೆLಾBದು5, ಾನು 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ೇರುವ ಬಹಳ ;ಂ4ೆ‰ೕ
.
ನಮ]ಗಳನು Gೊ'ೆದು ೇ'ೆ ಮದುYೆLಾBದು5, ನನ ಸಂಪಕ1ದ
CಲC ಾನು 4ಾ&bಾ&ಸ
. .
ಮುBD ಕ ಾ1ಟಕ ಅರಣ& ೇYೆೆ ೇಮಕೊಂಡು ಎ D ಎŠ ಹು4ೆ5

ಆಲಂಕ Dರುವlದಂದ ನನ ತಂ4ೆ ೆ ನನನು ಕಂಡ'ೆ +ೊ}ೆ |ಚುy ಇವರು ನನ +ೆಸ ೆ

ಮD ಬ2ೆಯುವ ಸಲುYಾB %ಾ8ರಬಹುದಲC4ೇ ಇವರು ಅರಣ& ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ
C ೇYೆ ಸ
CD
,
UವೃತN'ಾBರುವlದ ಂದ ಇ ¯É _ೆಯ
C ಹಲವರು ಪ sತದು5 ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ಹಲವರ
C ನನ*
ಬ ೆh «ZÁj¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¤A¢¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀÄA¢ £À£ÀUÉ
w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ಅಲC4ೆ ಇವರು ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ
C ಹಲವl kಾರೆಗಳನು* ಎದ ಸುMNರುGಾN gÉ ºÉ H
PÉ .
ಮ ಾqx UವೃತN'ಾದರು ಸಹ ಾನು 0ೆಲಸ %ಾಡುವ ಕvೇ ಯ ; ಯ

ಅ-0ಾ ಗiೆ +ಾಗೂ ಾನು 0ೆಲಸ %ಾಡುವ ಕvೇ ಯ ^ಾ&ಂ•^ೈ‹ ೆ ನನ*
DಬŒಂ=ಗi ೆ ೕ‹ %ಾ8 ನನ* ಬ ೆh %ಾ;M ಪTೆಯುMNರುGಾN'ೆ . ಆದ5 ಂದ ಇವರ
Mobile Tower Location, Whatsapp Call
, ವಸM ಮತುN eಸ
ಪ `ೕ
D Mೕವ?ತರಹದ kಾರೆೆ ಒಳಪ8Dದ'ೆ ಅಪ'ಾಧದ ಗುರುತುಗಳd
Sujith DIG
. ( .
4ೊ'ೆಯಬಹುದು ಎUಸುತN4ೆ +ೆH PÉ. ಮ ಾqxಯವರ ಅಕAನ ಮಗ
Office FDA
gÉ ¤w£ï
ನ
C ಆB ಕತ1ವ& Uವ1;ಸುMNರುGಾN +ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಅiಯ
gÉ . E £ÀÄß
0ೋg wಎ ಐ ಆB ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ
C ೇYೆ ಸ
CಸುMNರುGಾN ವರುಗಳ ಪ?bಾವವ
ಬಳಸುವ ಸಂಭವ ರು vÀÛzÉ)
ಆದ5 ಂದ ತU_ೆ ನTೆD ಅಪ'ಾ-ಗಳನು* ಪGೆNಹ aÑ ಸೂಕN 0ಾ £ÀÆ£ÀÄ
ಕ?ಮ PÉÊ ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ಸೂಕN ರK ೆ Uೕಡ ೇ0ಾB 0ೋ 4ೆ .
.
ತಮ] ನಂಬು ೇಯ
¸À»/-
( )
Dೕ%ಾ +ೆH
ಸ+ಾಯಕ ಅರಣ& ಸಂರK ಾ-0ಾ ,

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


ಸಂOೆPೕಧ ೆ , 4ೊ'ೆ ಾUVಾಳ&
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು .”

The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.94/2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340 of
the BNS, 2023. On registration of the crime on 08.10.2024, the
subject petition is preferred immediately and this Court on
05.11.2024 passes a detailed interim order, which reads as
follows:
" ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.2/2024
Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner.
The petitioner - accused No.4 is before this Court
calling in question registration of a crime in Crime
No.94/2024 registered for the offences under Sections
336(2), 336(3) and 340 of the BNS, 2023. The offences
alleged are for forgery and using a forged document as
genuine. The complainant is one Seema H., presently
working as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Forest
Department.
The gist of the complaint, reads as follows:
,
“Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಅ-ಕೃತ ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1  2ಾಸ 2ಾಸ 2ಾಸ 2ಾಸ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಸ0ಾ1 ಹು4ೆ5ಯ ಸ0ಾ1 ಹು4ೆ5ಯ ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಹು4ೆ5ಯ  ಹು4ೆ5ಯ

+ೆಸರುಗಳನು +ೆಸರುಗಳನು +ೆಸರುಗಳನು +ೆಸರುಗಳನು ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ ದುಬ1ಳ0ೆ %ಾ80ೊಂಡು %ಾ80ೊಂಡು %ಾ80ೊಂಡು %ಾ80ೊಂಡು +ಾಗೂ +ಾಗೂ +ಾಗೂ +ಾಗೂ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು ಸ;ಯನು ನಕಲು %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8
, ,
ದುರುಪtೕಗ ದುರುಪtೕಗ ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ನನ ೆ 0ೆಟ 0ೆಟ  +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು ತರಲು ತರಲು ನನ ಘನGೆ ನನ ಘನGೆ ೌರವ0ೆA ೌರವ0ೆA ದ0ೆA ದ0ೆA
ದುರುಪtೕಗ ದುರುಪtೕಗ ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ಪ8D0ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ನನೆ 0ೆಟ 0ೆಟ +ೆಸರು +ೆಸರು ತರಲು ತರಲು ನನ ಘನGೆ ನನ ಘನGೆ ೌರವ0ೆA ೌರವ0ೆA ದ0ೆA ದ0ೆA
,
ತರಲು ತರಲು ತರಲು ತರಲು ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನ ನನೆ ೆ +ಾUಯುಂಟು +ಾUಯುಂಟು +ಾUಯುಂಟು +ಾUಯುಂಟು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1  0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ಅ rØ ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ಉಂಟು%ಾಡಲು ನಮ] ಮ] ಮ] ಮ]
.(
ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1 ಸ0ಾ1  ಕvೇಯ ಕvೇಯ ಕvೇ ಕvೇಯ ಯ YಾGಾವರಣ YಾGಾವರಣ YಾGಾವರಣ YಾGಾವರಣ +ಾಳd +ಾಳd +ಾಳd +ಾಳd %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು %ಾಡಲು ಈ ೕM ಈ ೕM ಈ ಈ ೕM ೕM ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹುದು ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹುದು ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹುದು ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹುದು ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ
).
ಪ?M ಪ?M ಪ?M ಪ?M ಲಗMND4ೆ ಲಗMND4ೆ ಲಗMND4ೆ ಲಗMND4ೆ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ  ಪತ?ದ
C ಪತ?ದ
C ಪತ?ದ ಪತ?ದ
C
C ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಾನ ಬೆh ಾನ ಬೆh ಾನ ಬೆh ಾನ ಬೆh ಪ?ಾNwDರುವlಂದ ಪ?ಾNwDರುವlಂದ ಪ? ಪ?ಾNwDರುವlಂದ ಾNwDರುವlಂದ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ Lಾ'ೋ
Sucide
ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ದುಷAx1ಗಳ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಹGೆ& ಹGೆ& ಹGೆ& ಹGೆ& %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8 %ಾ8 ಅದನು ಅದನು ಅದನು ಅದನು ಎಂದೂ ಎಂದೂ ಎಂದೂ ಎಂದೂ Mರುಚಲು Mರುಚಲು Mರುಚಲು Mರುಚಲು ಈ ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ? ಪತ?
ఎంబ ఎంబ ఎంబ ఎంబ
.
ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇೋ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇೋ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇ ಬ'ೆ=ರಬಹು4ೇೋ ೋ ಸಂ ಸಂ ಸಂ ಸಂ µÀ ಯ4ೆ ಯ4ೆ ಯ ಯ4ೆ 4ೆ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5 ಆದ5ಂದ ಂದ Gಾವl Gಾವl Gಾವl Gಾವl ಈ ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ದೂರನು 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು 4ಾಖ 4ಾಖ
D0ೊಂಡು
D0ೊಂಡು

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


,
Gಾವl Gಾವl Gಾವl Gಾವl +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ +ೆsyನ ಗಮನ ವ;D ವ;D ವ;D ವ;D ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಸೂKzGೆಯನು ಅತು0ೊಂಡು ಅತು0ೊಂಡು ಅ ಅತು0ೊಂಡು ತು0ೊಂಡು ತU_ೆ ತU_ೆ ತU_ೆ ತU_ೆ ನTೆD ನTೆD ನTೆD ನTೆD ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು ಆ'ೋwಗಳನು
,
ಪGೆNಹsy ಪGೆNಹsy ಪGೆNಹsy ಪGೆNಹsy ಸೂ ಸೂ ಸೂ ಸೂ PÀÛ 0ಾನೂನು 0ಾನೂನು 0ಾನೂನು 0ಾನೂನು ಕ?ಮ ಕ?ಮ ಕ?ಮ ಕ?ಮ 0ೈೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು 0ೈೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು 0ೈ 0ೈೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು ೊಳjೇ0ೆಂದು ಈ ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ದೂರನು ತಮ]
C ತಮ]
C ತಮ] ತಮ]
C
C Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ Uೕ84ೆ +ಾಗೂ
.

ನನೆ ನನೆ ನನ ನನೆ ೆ ಸೂಕN ಸೂಕN ಸೂಕN ಸೂಕN ಭದ?Gೆಯನು ಭದ?Gೆಯನು ಭದ?Gೆಯನು ಭದ?Gೆಯನು Uೕಡಲು Uೕಡಲು Uೕಡಲು Uೕಡಲು 0ೋ4ೆ 0ೋ4ೆ 0ೋ 0ೋ4ೆ 4ೆ
,
ಮುಂದುವ gÉ ದು ನನ ೆ ಈ 0ೆಳ ೆ +ೆಸ ಸ^ಾದ ವ&|Nಗಳ ಬ ೆh ಅನು%ಾನ  zÀÄÝ,
CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß wêÀæPÀgÀªÁzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀgÉ zÀ ºÉeÉÓUÀ¼ÀÄ
ಅಪ'ಾಧ
.
ೋಚಸಬಹು4ಾB ನಂಬುGೆNೕ ೆ
.
1. `ವಶಂಕ  D ಆ 
#69,3 ,
£Éà PÁæ¸ï
,
ಪ}ೇ~ ಗುಂಡಪ• ಾC€
. ,
[ೆ D 'ೋ•
560006.
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
8660756414
¥sÉÆãï:

.
2. ಪ?=ೕ‚ ಕು%ಾ  +ೆH ಎ~
( )
0ಾಂ ೆ? 'ಾಜ|ೕಯ ; ೆ*^ೆ ಉಳjವರು
ªÀQîgÀÄ,
£ÀA.7/6 2£Éà PÁæ¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ

ಚಂ4ಾವ1ಕ  ^ೇಔ„
560020.
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
9535555558
¥sÉÆãï:

( . )
3. ೋ…  `ವಶಂಕ  D ಆ  ಇವರ ಅಣ†ನ ಮಗ
C/O .
`ವಶಂಕ 
#69,3 ,
£Éà PÁæ¸ï
,
ಪ}ೇ~ ಗುಂಡಪ• ಾC€
. ,
[ೆ D 'ೋ•
.
ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
8660766414
¥sÉÆãï:


ಏ0ೆಂದ'ೆ ಇವರುಗಳನು* ಆರಣ& ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ಕvೇ ಗiೆ %ಾ;M ಹಕುA
2005
ಅ-Uಯಮ ರ ಅ8ಯ
C ಪತ? ಬ'ೆದು ನನ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ-Dದ %ಾ;Mಗಳನು*
,
zÉÃ
ಪTೆದು0ೊಳdjMNರುವlದಲC ನನ* ಇ^ಾ_ಾ 4ಾಖ^ೆLಾದ ^ಾn ಬು€ =ನಚ ಗಳ
.
%ಾ;Mಗಳನು* ಪTೆದು0ೊಳdjMNರುGಾN'ೆ ^ಾn ಬು€ ಮತುN =ನಚ ಯ %ಾ;Mಗಳd
.
ಇವ ೆ ಏ0ೆ ೇ0ಾBರುತN4ೆ =ನಚ ಯ %ಾ;Mಯನು ಪTೆದು0ೊಂಡು ಇವರು ನನ
.
ಚಲನವಲನಗಳ ಬ ೆh Uಗ ಇg ರುವಂGೆ bಾಸYಾಗುMN4ೆ ಸದ  ಪ? ಾNwತ ಪತ?ದ
C ನನ*

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


,
ಾನ ಬ ೆh ಪ? ಾNwDರುವlದಂದ ನನ ೆ ಇವರುಗಳ ಬ ೆh +ೆಚುy ಅನು%ಾನ ದು5
. (
ಇವರುಗಳನು* Mೕವ?ತರದ kಾರೆೆ ಗುಪ8ಸೇ0ಾB 0ೋ 4ೆ 4ಾಖ^ೆಗಳd
, -20)
ಲಗMND4ೆ ಪl l ಸಂ_ೆ&
4. .
+ೆH 0ೆ. ಮ ಾqx
S/O Late Rtd RFO
PÁ¼ÀdªÀgÀAiÀÄå
( )
UವೃತN ವಲಯ ಅರ ಾ&-0ಾ ಆರಣ& ಇ^ಾ_ೆ
,
%ಾ vÉÆæòæà Uಲಯ
,
ಸ4ಾ`ವನಗರ Gೇಜೂರು ರ ೆN
-573219.
ºÁ¸À£À
8762055569
¥sÉÆãï:


ಏ0ೆಂದ'ೆ ಇವರು ನ‹ನ ತಂ4ೆLಾBದು5, ಾನು 0ೆಲಸ0ೆA ೇರುವ ಬಹಳ
.
;ಂ4ೆ‰ೕ ನಮ]ಗಳನು Gೊ'ೆದು ೇ'ೆ ಮದುYೆLಾBದು5, ನನ ಸಂಪಕ1ದ
CಲC ಾನು
. .
4ಾ&bಾ&ಸ ಮುBD ಕ ಾ1ಟಕ ಅರಣ& ೇYೆೆ ೇಮಕೊಂಡು ಎ D ಎŠ ಹು4ೆ5

ಆಲಂಕ Dರುವlದಂದ ನನ ತಂ4ೆ ೆ ನನನು ಕಂಡ'ೆ +ೊ}ೆ |ಚುy ಇವರು ನನ +ೆಸ ೆ

ಮD ಬ2ೆಯುವ ಸಲುYಾB %ಾ8ರಬಹುದಲC4ೇ ಇವರು ಅರಣ& ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ
C ೇYೆ ಸ
CD
,
¯É
UವೃತN'ಾBರುವlದ ಂದ ಇ _ೆಯ
C ಹಲವರು ಪ sತದು5 ಇ^ಾ_ೆಯ ಹಲವರ
C ನನ*
«ZÁj¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¤A¢¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀÄA¢ £À£ÀUÉ
ಬ ೆh

w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”
The complainant narrates that she and her father
are not in good terms. Her father who was an employee
of the forest department is completely jealous of her
success and her father has left her and her family long
ago.
The complainant further narrates that she comes
to know that someone is verifying her details and
suspects that the petitioner is the one who is seeking her
details, registers the subject crime for the afore-quoted
offences. Therefore, the petitioner in the impugned
crime is arrayed as accused No.4.
Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner would take this Court through a little backdrop
to the registration of the complaint. He would refer to the
marks card of the SSLC, of the complainant issued in the
month of March, 2001. The names of the mother of the
complainant is shown as ‘Pyarijan’ and the father of the
complainant is shown as ‘Harshad H.K.M.’ It is the

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


submission of the learned senior counsel that the parents
are Muslims and the complainant is therefore, by birth, a
Muslim.
The complainant institutes a original suit in
O.S.No.6551/2014 seeking declaration and injunction
that her father’s name is not ‘H.K.M.Harshad’ but
‘H.K.Mariswamy’ and he is a Hindu belonging to Adi
Karnataka, a scheduled caste.
In the suit, there were four defendants, all are
Officers of the State, and they remain ex-parte . An ex-
parte decree is granted declaring that the name of the
father of the complainant is not ‘H.K.M. Harshad’ but it is
‘H.K.Mariswamy’ and he belongs to a scheduled caste.
After the decree obtained by the complainant, her sister
follows it by instituting a suit in O.S.No.757/2018, for the
same declaration of change of the name of the father as
‘H.K.Mariswamy’ from ‘Harshad H.K.M.’. So prima facie ,
Harshad H.K.M., who is depicted to be a Muslim,
overnight becomes a Hindu – Scheduled Caste and the
name is changed.
After obtaining the decree, the school records of
the complainant and her siblings is changed from Muslim
to Hindu and one belonging to scheduled caste. He
would take this Court through those school records.
Whether the complainant has secured employment
contending that she is the one belonging to scheduled
caste or not, is a matter which requires to be noticed and
considered by the State.
The role of the petitioner is, in a complaint
registered by the present complainant against one Vinod
V., and his family members alleging for the offences
under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, on 12.07.2018, in Crime
No.102/2018, and in the proceedings seeking restitution
of conjugal rights against said Vinod, the petitioner is
said to have represented the said Vinod V., as his
advocate. The learned senior counsel would further
submit that the marriage between Vinod and the
complainant is said to have taken place in a park, named
Jinkevana, at Chikkamagalur, when the complainant was

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


working as an Assistant Conservator of Forest, at
Chikkamagalur.
Not a titter of ingredients of the offences are found
against the petitioner. Therefore, further investigation
and all further proceedings in Crime No.94/2024,
st
pending before the 41 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner shall remain
stayed.
Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor waives
notice for respondent No.1.
Issue emergent notice to respondent No.2
returnable by 10.12.2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy
of the petition papers upon the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor, forthwith.
The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor to
produce all records with regard to the employment of the
complainant before this Court on the next date of
hearing.
Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor to
secure investigation papers in the subject crime and also
the information as to what has happened to all the
crimes that are registered by the complainant -
Assistant Conservator of Forest and the proceedings
initiated against several persons from time to time, by
the next date of hearing.
Heard in-part.
List this matter on 10.12.2024, for further
hearing ."

9. The interim order is subsisting even as on date. The
issue now would be as to what is the role of the petitioner in
the entire episode of alleged crime against the petitioner.

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


10. Section 336 of the BNS, 2023 reads as follows:
" 336. Forgery .—(1) Whoever makes any false
document or false electronic record or part of a
document or electronic record, with intent to cause
damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any person to
part with property, or to enter into any express or
implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that
fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

(2) Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record forged shall be used for
the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(4) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record forged shall harm the
reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be
used for that purpose, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."

11. Section 336 of the BNS deals with the offence of
forgery. Sub-section (2) thereof prescribes punishment for a
person who commits forgery, while Section 336(1) defines the
contours of the offence. A plain reading of the provision would
unmistakably indicate that, for the offence to stand attracted,
there must exist making of a false document or false electronic
record with the intention of causing damage, injury or unlawful

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


prejudice. Yet, how such ingredients can even remotely be
attributed to the petitioner remains shrouded in complete
mystery.

12. The role attributed to the petitioner is singularly
confined to procuring certain documents from the school in
nd
which the 2 respondent/complainant has studied and that too
at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 whom the petitioner
represented in his professional capacity, as an Advocate.
Beyond this limited and purely professional act, the complaint
is conspicuously silent as to any participation, connivance,
fabrication or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner.
The allegations, therefore, are loosely laid against the
petitioner in particular. Equally untenable is the invocation of
Section 336(3) of the BNS. The said provision contemplates
where forgery is committed with the intention of using the
forged document for the purpose of cheating. Even here the
complaint fails to disclose how the petitioner could be alleged of
the ingredients of the said offence. The invocation of the
provision against the petitioner in particular is wholly
incomprehensible in law.

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


13. The other offence alleged is Section 340 of the BNS,
which too revolves around the use or existence of a forged
document. If the foundation under Section 336(2) is not even
met, the offence under Section 340 of the BNS cannot
independently survive. Therefore, the offences under the BNS
cannot even be permitted to be investigated into against the
petitioner.

14. What remains is the offence under Section 3(1)(r) &
(s) of the Atrocities Act, which reads as follows:
"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.—
[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view."

15. A perusal at the complaint would nowhere indicate
that petitioner-accused No.4 has indulged in hurling of abuses
against the complainant in a public place or a place of public
view. The interpretation of Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


Atrocities Act need not detain this Court for long or delve deep
into the matter.

16. The Apex Court in the case of KARUPPUDAYAR v.
1
STATE has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be
apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus:
“3. Punishments for offences of
atrocities. —(1) Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(a) ………………………………………………
(b) ………………………………………………
xxx xxx xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view;”
9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act
would reveal that for constituting an offence
thereunder, it has to be established that the accused
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section

1
2025 SCC Online SC 215

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the
accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view.
10. The term “any place within public view” initially
came up for consideration before this Court in the case of
2
Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel . This
3
Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand
referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal
position as under:
“ 14. Another key ingredient of the provision
is insult or intimidation in “any place within public
view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public
view” had come up for consideration before this
Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v.
State [ Swaran Singh v. State , (2008) 8 SCC 435 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression “public place”
and “in any place within public view”. It was held
that if an offence is committed outside the building
e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a
place within the public view. On the contrary, if the
remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence
since it is not in the public view ( sic ) [ Ed. : This
sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated
below in the extract from Swaran Singh , (2008) 8
SCC 435, at p. 736 d-e , and in the application of
this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the
remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view.”]. The Court
held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
“ 28. It has been alleged in the FIR that
Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”)
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view. It
could have been a different matter had the alleged
offence been committed inside a building, and also

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


was not in the public view. However, if the offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the
expression “place within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place can be a private
place but yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place
which is owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or
an instrumentality of the State, and not by private
persons or private bodies.”
(emphasis in original)”
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place
‘within public view’, the place should be open where
the members of the public can witness or hear the
utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the
alleged offence takes place within the four corners of
the wall where members of the public are not
present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place
at a place within public view.”
(Emphasis supplied)

17. The said judgment is followed by the Apex Court in
2
the case of GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI v. STATE wherein
the Apex Court has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
5.1 Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act
read as under,

2
2026 SCC Online SC 834

- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


“ 3. Punishments for offences
atrocities .— 3(1) Whoever, not being a member of
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(a) to (q) ………..
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view;”
5.1.1 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST Act can be said to have been committed when
a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates
with an intent to humiliate a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view. Offence under Section 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act is made out when any member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is abused by
caste name in any place within public view.
5.2 The ingredients of the offences are that
there has to be an intentional insult or intimidation
which has to be with an intent to humiliate a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or that such
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is
abused by caste name by a person who does not
belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The
common essential for constituting the offence under
both the Sections is that the insult or intimidation
under sub-clause (r) or hurling of abuses under sub-
clause (s) have taken place “in any place within
public view”.
5.3 All the appellants are framed for the offence
under Section 506 read with Section 34, IPC. Section 506,
IPC is about punishment for the offence of criminal
intimidation whereas the offence of criminal intimidation is
defined in Section 503, IPC. It says that whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom

- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


that person is interested, and when the same is done with
an intent to cause alarm to that person, commits criminal
intimidation. Section 34, IPC speaks about the acts done by
several persons in furtherance of common intention.
5.4 Before examining the sustainability of the charge
framed and the charge-sheet for its details and contents in
respect of the aforesaid offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, it would be useful to survey few
decisions of this Court which have explained the scope and
purport of the phrase “in any place within public view”
pinpointing that the said requirement is indispensable to be
fulfilled in order that the offence under the SC/ST Act is
constituted.
5.5 In Swaran Singh v. State through Standing
7
Counsel , the place where the informant was insulted
by the appellant by calling him ‘ chamar ’ was one
where he had been standing near the car which was
parked at the gate of the premises of his employer.
This Court held that such place was “a place within
public view”. The argument that the alleged act was
not committed in a public place and hence did not
come within the purview of the offence under the
SC/ST Act was negatived by explaining a fine
distinction between the expression ‘in any place
within public view’ as used in the provision and the
expression ‘public place’.
5.5.1 It was stated that the expression ‘a place
within public view’ could not be confused with the
expression ‘public place’. It was highlighted that a
place can be a private place yet can be within public
view,
“….It could have been a different matter had
the alleged offence been committed inside a
building, and also was not in the public view.
However, if the offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone from
the road or lane outside the boundary wall,
the lawn would certainly be a place within the
public view. Also, even if the remark is made
inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or

- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


friends) then also it would be an offence since
it is in the public view….”
(Para 28)
5.6 Swaran Singh (supra) came to be relied on
by this Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of
8
Uttarakhand in respect of the concept of ‘place
within public view’ as an ingredient of the offence .
The very observations in Swaran Singh (supra) were
reiterated in paragraph 14 in Hitesh Verma (supra) when
the Court noticed the allegations in the FIR about abusing
the informant. It was stated in the FIR that the
incident of abuse happened within the four walls of
the building of the informant, and it was not the case
of the informant that any member of the public was
present at the time of the incident in the house. The
Court, therefore, ruled that the basic requirement
that the abusive words were uttered in ‘a place
within public view’ was not made out . It was further
noticed that witnesses whose names were appended to the
chargesheet were not the persons present within the four
walls of the building.
5.7 In a more recent decision in Karuppudayar
v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of
9
Police, Lalgudi Trichy , this Court considered its own
decisions in Swaran Singh (supra) as well as Hitesh
Verma (supra), and elucidated an ironed-out
proposition of law as under,
“It could thus be seen that, to be a
place ‘within public view’, the place should be
open where the members of the public can
witness or hear the utterance made by the
accused to the victim. If the alleged offence
takes place within the four corners of the wall
where members of the public are not present,
then it cannot be said that it has taken place
at a place within public view.”
(Para 11)
5.7.1 The Court observed that even by taking
the allegations in the FIR at their face value, what
was alleged was that when the complainant was in

- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


the office, the accused came there, made inquiries
from the complainant and upon not being satisfied,
started abusing the complainant in the name of his
caste and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues
of the complainant came later to pacify the accused
and took him away. The Court thus noticed that the
incident had taken place within the four corners of
the chambers of the complainant, which was not “a
place within public view”.
5.8 A decision of the Karnataka High Court in
Sri Rithesh Pais v. State of Karnataka, by Puttur
10
Town P.S. may also be noticed to be relevant, in
which the offence was held to be not made out as the
chargesheet material showed that the hurling of the
abuses had happened in the basement and within the
walls of the basement, holding that the basement of
the building was not “a place within public view”.
5.9 A conclusive statement of law that
emanates from the ratio of the decisions of this Court
discussed above is that in order to make out the
offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s)
of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and
the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses
must take place at “a place within public view”. It
must be a place within the public gaze. Even happens
to be a private place, then in such eventuality a
public-eye must have an access to be able to notice
what happens there or what is taking place that will
only make the “place within public view”.
6. Having appreciated the aspect that the
requirement that the occurrence of the incident of insult or
abuse, towards the member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe has to be in “a place within public view”,
making the same a necessary condition for constituting the
offence under the SC/ST Act, the facts in the present case
may be attentively noticed.
6.1 In the FIR, while referring to the incident of
abuse, on 28.01.2021, the statements were made by
respondent No. 2-complainant that the appellants
were in the habit of harassing and hurling caste-
based slurs at him for over a year and that they used

- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


to do it when some other persons or friends come to
meet him, by using the abusive words from their
balcony or at the ground floor of the house.
6.2 These allegations about the alleged
continuous conduct did not speak of any specific
instance or happening on a particular day and they
are too irrelevant to contribute to make out an
offence under Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act. It was next stated that because of
such behaviour of the appellants, respondent No. 1-
complainant had to send his son in a separate house.
Such general accusations lead nowhere when it
comes to allegation about the commission of offence.
6.3 As per the averments in the FIR, on the
relevant date that is on 28.01.2021, the altercation
occurred at the time when the appellants were trying
to break open the house of respondent No. 2-
complainant. According to respondent No. 2-
complainant, appellant No. 1 hurled casteist slur in
an abusive way to insult him and his wife. All the
appellants-accused, it was further alleged,
intimidated respondent No. 2-complainant and also
threatened to implicate him in molestation charge.
6.4 It was noticeable that in the complaint/FIR,
nowhere it was stated that the said incident wherein
appellant No. 1 and other appellants are stated to
have abused and threatened respondent No. 1-
complainant, took place where there was a public
gaze. The necessary ingredient of occurrence of the
incident “in a place within public view” was
conspicuously absent.
6.5 Not only that it was not stated that it was
“a place within public view” or that the outsiders or
the members of the family were present at the time,
the details mentioned in the FIR clearly indicated
that the place of occurrence of the incident was
inside the residential house. Referring to the facts
stated and the contents of FIR in this regard, firstly
the FIR is silent about the place of occurrence of the
alleged incident. Secondly, point No. 5(b) in the FIR
mentioned the place of occurrence at the address

- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


stated as “7/38, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi”, which
was admittedly a residential home. Similarly was
recorded the address of respondent No. 2-
complainant in point No. 6(e) in the FIR to reinforce
that it was the place of residential house where the
occurrence took place. Thirdly, in the charge-sheet
filed before the court, the very residential address
“7/38, Ramesh Nagar, Kirti Nagar, Delhi” was
mentioned to suggest the place of occurrence.
6.6 Respondent No. 2-complainant named two
witnesses, one Love Manchanda and another named
Chandra Prakash. Not only that both were the friends of
respondent No. 2-complainant, from their statements,
nothing could be elicited to show that they witnessed the
incident. Love Manchanda stated that “on 28.12.2020,
Bhim Sain (complainant) asked me to accompany him to
his house where he wanted to take a picture of the locked
lock of his house”. In his statement, Chandra Prakash
stated that “he went to the house at Ramesh Nagar with
the complainant Bhim Sain and when he wanted to open
the lock of his house, the accused interjected”.
6.7 All material facts go to suggest that the
alleged incident took place in a private place and
within four walls of the house of respondent No. 2-
complainant and the appellants, who all are family
members. While the allegation in the FIR was, as
stated, that respondent No. 2-complainant had been
suffering similar kind of incidents since long and for
last one year, it was not stated anything specific in
respect of those earlier incidents with regard to the
incident for which the complaint was filed, it was not
indicated that any independent member of public was
present to witness the occurrence. Once that is so, to
suggest that the house place was not exposed to
public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no
way becomes “a place within public view”.
7. For any criminal proceedings to initiate, the
starting point is filing of a complaint and registration
of FIR. The complaint/FIR provides the first account
of the happening of events and incidents alleged as
commission of offence. A reaction and revelation at
the first blush is always natural and therefore

- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


becomes creditworthy. The contents of the complaint
giving the initial and primary description could be
treated as more reliable, for, at the subsequent
stage, there would be a scope and room for
improvisation.
11
8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , this
Court laid down the acid test that if the contents of
the FIR, taken at their face value, do not make out
any case against the accused, such an FIR registered
with ulterior motive deserves to be quashed. In
Hitesh Verma (supra), in addition to the ingredient of
“a place within public view”, the details in the FIR or
the charge-sheet failed to disclose the precise
contents of abusive language employed by the
applicant to attract the offence under the SC/ST Act.
In other words, when the essentials to constitute the
offence did not come out from and were not satisfied
in the contents of the FIR, the offence was held to
have not been made out, rendering the FIR liable to
be quashed.
12
8.1 In Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh , this
Court noted that the defect in the FIR was in the nature of
non-mentioning of the name of material witness PW-1
which was treated as a basic defect in the hypothesis
portrayed by the prosecution. The Court, in that context,
observed, “although we accept that the FIR need not be an
encyclopaedia of the crime, but absence of certain essential
facts which are conspicuously missing in the present FIR,
point towards suspicion that the crime itself may have been
staged”.
8.2 Also in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of
13
Uttar Pradesh , this Court found absence of requisite
ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act
holding that the offence was not committed at “a
place within public view”. It was observed that even
though the appellant in that case might have abused
the complainant, but such abuse by itself and without
anything more does not warrant subjecting the
appellant to face a trial, particularly in view of the
clear absence of the ingredients necessary to
constitute the offence.

- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


9. Thus, it is trite principle that the FIR
becomes liable in law to be quashed when it, in its
bare reading, does not disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the offence alleged therein.
The basic constituents of the offence alleged in the
FIR must stem and stand disclosed from the contents
of the FIR. In order that the FIR alleging any action is
sustainable in law to be a good and acceptable
document to proceed criminally against any accused
named therein or any person to be made accused on
its basis, it must manifest and reveal basic ingredient
of the offence(s) alleged therein. For an offence to be
made out under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
SC/ST Act, as is the question in the instant case, the
requirement that the occurrence has to be “in a place
within public view” is not satisfied, is missing and
absent.
9.1 It could be said that the occurrence of the
incident to become an offence under the SC/ST Act
must have happened “in a place within public view”,
is in a way, a principal requirement amongst the
other ingredients. The other aspects namely
“intentional insult or intimidation” and “an intent to
humiliate”, gathers a kind of intensity when the
insult, intimidation, humiliation or abusive
utterances, as the case may be, takes place in “a
place within public view”, in the presence of
members of the public. The requirement that the
place must be one “within public view” can be said to
be substantiating the other elements of the offence
under the SC/ST Act. It is therefore a sine qua non
for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)

18. If the complaint is tested on the anvil of the law
elucidated by the Apex Court, what emerges with unmistakable
clarity is that the allegations pertaining to the offences under
the Atrocities Act are woven in the most fragile and nebulous

- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


manner against the petitioner. The complaint, even when read
as a whole and accepted as true, fails to disclose foundational
ingredients that would constitute the offence so alleged. There
is not even a whisper of any overt act attributable to the
petitioner which could legitimately invite the rigour of penal
provisions against him. In such circumstance, permitting
investigation to continue its course against the petitioner would
amount to abuse of the process of the law and result in
miscarriage of justice.

19. Before parting with the matter, this Court
considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its
deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has
surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering
plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely
represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of
their professional obligations, are themselves being
dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as
accused. The only “fault” attributable to such
Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and

- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


articulated their cause before the concerned judicial
forum.

20. Such tendency strikes at the very heart of
independence of the bar, by necessary extension the
purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are
officers of the Court, they function within the confines of
professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their
client and presenting their cause within the four corners
of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of
appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal
prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the
inevitable consequence would be a chilling and
paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional
responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot
be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to
wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against
the members of the bar.

nd
21. In the case at hand, the 2 respondent/complainant,
without even a semblance of lawful justification, has chosen to

- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


implicate the petitioner as accused No.4 while setting the
criminal law into motion. Such conduct, particularly emanating
from a public servant, displays a reckless misuse of authority
and abuse of coercive powers vested in the state machinery.
The complainant, therefore, deserves to be unequivocally
admonished for such irresponsible invocation of criminal
process against the petitioner, an Advocate. This Court deems
it apposite to observe that any reiteration of such conduct in
future, bereft of legal foundation, shall not only invite strict
judicial scrutiny, but would also be viewed with utmost
seriousness, for the dignity of legal profession and the
sanctity of justice delivery system must remain
inviolable.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
[I] Writ Petition is allowed.
[II] Proceedings in Crime No.94/2024 pending before
st
the 41 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21597
WP No. 29541 of 2024

HC-KAR


Bangalore City, Bangalore, qua the petitioner,
stands quashed.
[III] It is made clear that the observations made during
the course of this order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of the petitioner and the
same would not become applicable, bind or

influence the other accused.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE



CBC/BKP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51
CT:SS