SMT. ANURADHA PADIYAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

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


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1461 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ANURADHA PADIYAR,
W/O N.M. PADIYAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.44, 19 CROSS,
TH
6 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560082.

2. K.J. DHANANJAYA,
S/O LATE JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
TH
NO.14, 28 CROSS,
TH
JAYANAGAR 7 BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560074.

3. SUHAS RAO,
S/O SURESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT G-1, LE PALACE,
B.V. ROAD, ATTAVAR,
MANGALORE-575001.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SAMARTH S. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION,









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
OCW SQUAD,
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,
N.T. PET, BANGALORE-560002.

3. J. PRUTHVIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
S/O GOPALA REDDY,
R/AT NO.131,
TH ST
4 CROSS, 1 MAIN,
SOMESWARANAGAR,
ST
1 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2021,
STEPS IN RESPECT OF DECEASED R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.11696/2020 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE, REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420,
468, 471, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.44/2013 OF
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent/State.
2. This matter was heard elaborately in the previous
occasion and the learned counsel for the petitioners had raised
the issue particularly with regard to CCB is not a police station
and also very initiation of proceedings is bad in law. The
learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of SMT. NAGAWWA v. VEERANNA
SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI AND OTHERS reported in
(1976) 3 SCC 736 and particularly brought to the notice of
this Court Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate is
required to satisfy himself as to whether a prima facie case is
made out for proceeding further and taking cognizance of the
offence. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this
Court paragraph No.5 of the said judgment, wherein
enumerated four circumstances under which an order issuing
process against the accused can be quashed or set aside.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


Condition (4) provides that such an order may be interfered
with where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint
by legally competent authority and the like. The learned
counsel referring the same, would mainly contend that the
police who have initiated the case i.e., CCB, is not a police
station. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that
when the matter was pending before the Jayanagara Police
Station, Sub-division of Siddapura, case is transferred to the
CCB and there is no notification for having transferred the case
and hence, there is a fundamental defect.
3. The learned counsel on merits brought to the notice
of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LIMITED AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 690 , wherein the Apex Court dealt with the
issue with regard to invoking of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC
and the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that there cannot
be ingredients of both the offences and the ingredients of
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are different.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies
upon the judgment of this Court passed in Crl.R.P.No.34/2018
c/w Crl.R.P.No.1237/2016 dated 18.01.2021 and brought to
the notice of this Court that the issue with regard to the CCB is
not a police station is taken note of by this Court and comes to
the conclusion that CCB is not a police station.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 files a memo
along with the notification dated 19.01.2024 and brought to the
notice of this Court that in view of this notification, CCB is
recognized as a police station. The notification is very clear
that after getting prior approval from the Police Commissioner,
can proceed in the matter. The learned counsel also produced
the notification dated 04.01.2024.
6. In reply to this argument, the learned counsel for
the petitioners would submit that the investigation was
conducted by CCB prior to this notification and the same is not
applicable to the case on hand. The learned counsel would
contend that once the notification is issued and unless the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


same is made clear that this notification is retrospectively
applicable, there cannot be any retrospective application.
7. Having considered the factual aspects of the case,
though charge-sheet is filed against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 read with
Section 34 of IPC, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Delhi Race Club (supra), there cannot be
continuation of proceedings in respect of Sections 406 and 420
of IPC. But, in the case on hand, there is a fundamental defect.
Admittedly, the case was registered by the Jayanagar Police
and the same was transferred to the CCB and as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no such
notification for transfer of the case. But case was taken up by
CCB and this Court already dealt with the matter that CCB is
not a police station in Crl.R.P.No.34/2018 c/w
Vtl.R.P.No.1237/2016. The notification issued by the State is
subsequently i.e., on 19.01.2024 and in the meanwhile, the
police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and
the Trial Court also taken the cognizance. There is a
fundamental defect in initiating the proceedings against the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


petitioners, conducting the investigation and filing of the
charge-sheet and CCB was not having any authority to file the
charge-sheet and the Trial Court fails to take note of the said
fact into consideration. The very taking of cognizance against
the petitioners is bad in law and without any authority.
8. The principles laid down in the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa (supra) in paragraph
No.5, particularly condition No.4 for quashing of the
proceedings is aptly applicable to the case on hand, since there
is a complaint and the same suffers from fundamental legal
defects i.e., want of sanction or absence of a complaint by
legally competent authority and the like. It is also observed in
the said judgment that the cases mentioned by the Court are
purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate
contingencies where the High Court can quash the proceedings.
The Apex Court in detail discussed the same long back in the
year 1976 itself. The principles laid down in the said judgment
are aptly applicable to the case on hand both with regard to the
initiation of proceedings as well as merit also though either one
of the offence can be continued under Sections 406 or 420 of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61788
CRL.P No. 1461 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010070342021


IPC. But in the case on hand, the very initiation of the
proceedings is very defective and the same is not by a
competent authority and hence, it requires interference of this
Court.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed and the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.11696/2020 is quashed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12