N V BABU REDDY vs STATE BY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3207 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1. N.V. BABU REDDY,
S/O VENUGOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
DODDANEKKUNDI,
BENGALURU-560 037.

RD
ALSO AT: R/AT NO.2, 3 ‘A’ CROSS,
DOCTOR’S LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
…PETITIONER
















(BY SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE BY
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM P.S.,
BENGALURU-560 086
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. M. GANESH,
S/O MANIKANTESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4CC, MARUTHI NILAYA,
OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI POST,
BENGALURU-560 043.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. AKSHAY RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)




Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.30/2020 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 307,
120B R/W 511 OF IPC, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM P.S., PENDING
TH
ON THE FILE OF THE 7 ADDILTIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NRUPTHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the FIR in
Crime No.30/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 324, 307, 120B read with Section 511 of IPC and the case
is registered based on the private complaint in PCR
No.1461/2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.

3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to
notice of this Court that an allegation is made in paragraph
No.4 of PCR that initially the accused used to release the
payments but after the work was completed, the accused
abruptly stopped the payment and subsequently refused to
pay. With this regard, complainant had filed a complaint
against accused in HAL police station on 04.01.2019. The

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


counsel would submit that the earlier complaint is quashed by
this Court in Criminal Petition No.3511/2019 vide order dated
22.02.2023. The counsel relying upon the said order also
vehemently contend that in paragraph No.5 of the PCR, it is
stated that investigation is still incomplete and the accused still
threatens of dare consequences of life. The complainant
submits that the complainant had approached the accused as
no action is being taken by the police to recover money. Hence,
the allegation is made that the accused used to cause threat
and abuse in vulgar language. The complainant kept constant
pressure and on 17.12.2019, the complainant called the
accused and the accused told the complainant to come at 03.00
p.m. near Geleyara Balaga, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore.
The complainant promptly reached the spot along with one Mr.
Prabhakar and called the accused and he asked the
complainant to wait at the spot and within a matter of minutes,
the complainant and Prabhakar were surrounded by a group of
people and they abused in filthy language and verbal
altercation started and the matter escalated and they started
for physically manhandle and when he noticed that Prabhakar
saw one of the fellows pulling out weapons from the auto

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


rickshaw, he ran to the car and started it and the complainant
followed Prabhakar and escaped from the spot.
4. In paragraph No.6 of the complaint, it is stated that
the complainant along with Prabhakar rushed to the
Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station where the police have
refused to accept the complaint as the complainant and
Prabhakar did not sustain injuries and that they escaped.
5. The other allegation made in paragraph No.7 of the
complaint is that accused again threatened the complainant
with dire consequences to kill the complainant and his family. It
is also submitted that on 27.01.2020, the complainant again
approached Mahalakshmi Layout Police and requested to
register the complaint as the complainant was under life threat
from the accused. Accordingly, the said police have received
the complaint the registered the same as NCR No.30/2020 and
produced the copy of the NCR. Inspite of several complaints are
received, the police have not taken any action. Hence, the
present complaint is filed.
6. The Trial Court having considered the averments
made in the complaint, referred the matter under Section

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, case is registered and the present
petition is filed.
7. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that when the complaint was filed before the Trial Court,
the same is not supported by any affidavit and the same is
Priyanka
against the principles laid down in the judgment of
Srivastava and others vs State of UP reported in (2015) 6
SCC 287 . To that effect, counsel also produces the order sheet
and so also relied upon the earlier order of this Court in
quashing the earlier complaint and also the earlier FIR. The
counsel would vehemently contend that complainant has
developed the habit of filing the complaint that too for money
recovery when the work was done. The allegation in this
complaint also money was not paid. Hence, it is nothing but an
abuse of process.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for
respondent No.1/State would submit that when the matter was
referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, FIR was registered and
conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The
learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the
charge-sheet was filed on 15.05.2020 itself and hence, there

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


cannot be any quashing. The copy of the charge-sheet is also
produced before this Court.
9. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition
as well as considering the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the private complaint filed before the Magistrate
is not supported by an affidavit in view of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra). The
learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend
that there is no any compliance under Sections 154(1) and
154(3) of Cr.P.C. and hence, there cannot be any prosecution
against the petitioner. Having perused the complaint, no doubt,
in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 specific averments are made that
when the complaint was given to the Mahalakshmi Layout
Police, the police have refused to accept the complaint as the
complainant and Mr.Prabhakar did not sustain injuries and they
actually escaped. Further allegation is made in paragraph No.7
that they were subjected to life threat and once again, the
complainant approached the Mahalakshmi Layout Police on
27.01.2020 and requested to register the complaint and the
police have received the complaint and registered NCR
No.30/2020. The copy of the complaint and NCR is also
produced as Annexures-A and B. It is stated that the police

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


have given acknowledgment dated 31.01.2020, stating that the
dispute is in civil in nature and directed to approach the Court
to file the complaint. The copy of the said acknowledgment is
produced as Annexure-C. Without any other alternative, the
complainant filed the complaint.
10. It is important to note that when the complaint was
filed, the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
It is the specific case of the complainant that private complaint
is not supported by an affidavit. Though the complainant is
represented through the counsel, the counsel did not appear
before this Court in spite of an opportunity is given. When there
is no any affidavit in support of the complaint, in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka
Srivastava (supra), the complaint cannot be entertained. The
subsequent judgments of the Apex Court also reiterated the
principles of the said judgment. No doubt, the police have
received the complaint and issued the endorsement as well as
issued the NCR and hence, the question of compliance of
Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. does not arise as they
have not refused, but entertained the complaint and given NCR
and no need to approach the Superintendent of Police. There is
a fundamental defect in filing the complaint that affidavit is not

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 3207 of 2020


filed. The law in this regard is well settled. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, even in subsequent judgments following
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) has reiterated that the complaint
must be supported by an affidavit. No doubt, the learned
Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1/State filed copy
of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet was filed prior to
granting of stay by this Court. But when there is a
fundamental defect that the complaint itself is not supported by
an affidavit, no value could be attached to the complaint and
charge-sheet. Hence, the very initiation of proceedings against
the petitioner requires to be quashed and consequently, Crime
No.30/2020 requires to be quashed and also the filing of
charge-sheet also is liable to be quashed.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated
against the petitioner in Crime No.30/2020 and
charge-sheet is quashed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN/MD