MR G KARIAPPA vs STATE BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1110 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. G. KARIAPPA
S/O MR. P. GOVINDARAJULU KARIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.10, 19 CROSS,
TH
24 MAIN, GUNASHEELA LAYOUT,
TH
J.P NAGAR 5 PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078
2. MR. PRASAD G.N
S/O MR. G.B NARASIMHASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.M.C.-1503 NO.8
GOLDEN GRAND, NH-4 TUMKUR ROAD
OPP RMC YARD,
YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU-560 022
3. MR RAJU H
S/O MR. L. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.490, 3 MAIN ROAD,
NEAR MARUTHI CIRCLE
SRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 022
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
4. MR BALAKRISHNA.B
S/O BAILAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.611, 8 MAIN ROAD,
TH
8 CROSS ROAD
NAR LAKSHMI COMMUNICATION
K.N EXTENSION,
YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU-560 022
5. MR JAGADISH.S.J
S/O MR JOGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.88, MARUTHI NILAYA,
ST
1 CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT
ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030
6. MR MOHAN.P
S/O RANGARAJU.P
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
TH
NO.47/64, 12 'A' CROSS
VYALIKAVAL,
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
7. MR SHRIDHAR K.M
S/O MR MUDDAIAH.K.R
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
THAVAREKERE POST
KURUBARA HALLI,
BENGALURU-562 130
8. MR SHIVARAJU.S
S/O MR SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.327,
TH
10 'A' MAIN ROAD
MANJUNATH NAGAR
RD
3 STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
BENGALURU-560 010
9. MR NAGARAJ.D
S/O MR. DASAPPA .C
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.8/2-25
TH
11 CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI
TH
NEAR LAKE, ADJACENT TO 9 BLOCK
SIR M. VISHVESHWARAIAH LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 056
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN,
SRI. SUMUKH B RAM,
SRI. PRAKASH K.A, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. M/S KUMAR SAT LINKS
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI KUMAR
HAVING OFFICE AT
RD
NO.43, 3 CROSS,
PILLANNA GARDEN
BENGALURU-560 084
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. C. PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PCR FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN PCR
NO.9189/2015 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S
506,34,504,420,415,416 OF IPC NOW PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED 2ND A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-
A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to
10 in C.C.No.35457/2022 (arising out of Crime No.288/2015
registered by Magadi Road Police Station), for the offences
punishable under Sections 415, 416, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section
34 of IPC, presently pending on the file of II Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short, 'the learned
Magistrate').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before
the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
Bengaluru, against the petitioners alleging commission of the
aforesaid offences. It is the case of respondent No.2 that he is
running a cable network business under the name and style of
Kumar SAT Links , having more than 1,500 customers, and that
the petitioners are his service providers. It is further alleged
that the petitioners supplied NOVA Base set-top boxes, stated
to be Chinese products, without guarantee or warranty and
without BIS certification, out of which more than 600 set-top
boxes supplied to respondent No.2 were defective. When the
customers complained about the defects, respondent No.2
approached the petitioners seeking replacement of the set-top
boxes, but they failed to do so. It is also alleged that
respondent No.2 had invested a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- towards
partnership in the company, but the petitioners failed to
provide the share certificates or refund the principal amount
invested. Aggrieved by the alleged acts of the petitioners,
respondent No.2 instituted the private complaint.
3. The learned Magistrate referred the private
complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, the police registered an FIR for the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
aforesaid offences, conducted an investigation and submitted a
'B' report. Aggrieved by the submission of the 'B' report,
respondent No.2 filed a protest petition. However, the learned
Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offences
without passing a specific order thereon ‘B’ Report. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the
present petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the alleged offences without application of
judicious mind. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had filed
the complaint without furnishing the supporting affidavit as
required under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., contrary to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava
and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2015)
6 SCC 287 , which has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
Karnataka and Another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1575 .
6. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate has
committed an error in rejecting the 'B' report and taking
cognizance of the alleged offences without passing an
appropriate order on the 'B' report. On these grounds, the
learned counsel sought to quash the impugned proceedings and
prayed for allowing the petition.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposed the petition contending that the complainant had
specifically stated in the private complaint that he had
approached the jurisdictional police as well as the higher police
authorities, but no action was taken. Therefore, having no
other alternative, he was constrained to file the private
complaint. It is submitted that the averments made in the
complaint themselves demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, merely on the
ground that a supporting affidavit was not filed along with the
complaint, the proceedings cannot be quashed that too order of
reference culminated with filing of ‘B’ Report and subsequent
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance. In support of
his contention, reliance placed in the case of Anurag
Bhatnagar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - AIR 2025 Supreme
Court 3427. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the petition.
8 . The learned HCGP fairly conceded that respondent
No.2 had not filed an affidavit along with the private complaint.
However, it was contended that the learned Magistrate had
subsequently taken cognizance of the alleged offences and,
therefore, the initial defect of non-filing of the affidavit is
curable in nature and cannot, by itself, be a ground for
quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, the learned HCGP
sought dismissal of the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire materials on record.
10. In the present case, admittedly, the private
complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit. Nevertheless,
the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the
jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
thereto, the police conducted an investigation and submitted a
'B' report. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a protest petition.
However, without passing an order on the 'B' report, the
learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged
offences.
11. Be that as it may, the primary question that arises for
consideration is whether filing of an affidavit along with a
private complaint seeking a direction under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. is mandatory. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra), has held that filing of an affidavit along
with an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is
mandatory to prevent false and frivolous complaints. The said
position of law has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi (supra), wherein, after
referring to the principles laid down in Priyanka Srivastava
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the legal
position and summarised its conclusions as follows:
“ 45. The High Court has taken a view that this
is a curable defect since before the referral order on
the PCR by the ACMM for registering an FIR under
Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the required formalities
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
were done. In our considered opinion, this approach
cannot be labelled erroneous. The requirement under
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is to safeguard the rights
of the citizenry and to put a stop to unjust criminal
action and filing of vexatious applications to settle
personal scores. Thus, such requirement could not be
said to be a mere formality. One of us (Sudhanshu
Dhulia, J.) as a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High
Court, in Sachin Chamoli v. State of Uttarakhand,
2016 (3) NCC 68, where no affidavit had been filed,
held that filing of affidavit was a mandatory
requirement as per Priyanka Srivastava (supra). In
Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC
639, this Court held that the Magistrate concerned
should not have entertained the
complaint/application under Section 156(3) of the
CrPC therein, as it was not supported by an affidavit.
In the case at hand, before the ACMM passed the
referral order, the complaint was backed by an
affidavit. In Ramesh Kumar Bung v. State of
Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 264, the Court,
while stating that the directions in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra) are mandatory, declined to
interfere with the order(s) impugned therein, but
noted that the informant had filed the affidavit
belatedly. To complete the discussion on this aspect
of the law, we may also refer to our judgment in
Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 443 where, speaking through Sudhanshu
Dhulia, J., this Court upheld an order of the Calcutta
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
High Court, to the effect that the direction in
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) to file the affidavit, was
prospective in nature. Therefore, if after the filing of
the complaint/application but before any order
thereon is passed, such requirement is allowed to be
fulfilled/complied with by the complainant, it would
not, in our view, run counter to the law exposited in
Priyanka Srivastava (supra). We sum up our
conclusions on this score as follows : (i) Directions
issued in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) are mandatory;
(ii) Guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava
(supra) operate prospectively; (iii) Non-filing of the
supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be
cured before the Magistrate passes any substantive
order on the complaint/application, and; (iv) If the
Magistrate proceeds without the requisite affidavit,
such order/any consequential orders/proceedings can
be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance
with Priyanka Srivastava (supra)."
12. On careful perusal of the aforesaid observations of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that where a Magistrate
proceeds to pass a substantive order on a private complaint or
an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. without insisting
upon the requisite affidavit, such order and all consequential
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
proceedings are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with
the principles laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra).
13. In the present case, as discussed supra, the learned
Magistrate, without insisting upon the affidavit, not only
referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but also
subsequently proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged
offences. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings
are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
i. The petition is allowed .
ii. Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the proceedings against
the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 10 in
C.C.No.35457/2022 (arising out of Crime
No.288/2015 registered by Magadi Road
Police Station), for the offences punishable
under Sections 415, 416, 420, 504, 506 r/w
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61897
CRL.P No. 1110 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010067002024
Section 34 of IPC, presently pending on the
file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.
iii. However, the respondent No.2 is at
liberty to file fresh complaint, if required.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2