V M KUMARSWAMY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020




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.7531 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1. V.M. KUMARSWAMY,
S/O LATE P. VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.668, 5 CROSS,
ND
2 STAGE, ‘A’ BLOCK,
RHBS LAYOUT,
VISWANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560091.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. M.N. GANESH,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, ARKAVATHI,
TH TH
14 MAIN, 17 CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU-560055.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1)









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.384/2020 OF
RESPONDENT MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, REGISTERD ON
THE BASIS OF THE PCR.NO.179/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 200, 404, 419, 420,
421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467 AND 468 OF IPC, WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, NELAMANAGALA.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the
FIR in Crime No.384/2020 registered on the basis of PCR
No.179/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B,
200, 404, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467 and 468 of
IPC.
3. This Court had issued notice against respondent
No.2/complainant and it was reported that respondent No.2 is
no more and copy of the death certificate of respondent No.2 is
placed on record stating that he expired on 03.05.2021. Taking
note of the same, this Court vide order dated 28.09.2026,
granted one week’s time to take necessary steps and ordered

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


to list the matter on 05.10.2026. On 05.10.2026, the learned
counsel for the petitioner sought two days time to file
necessary application and accordingly, two days time was
granted and ordered to list the matter on 08.10.2026. On
08.10.2026, once again the learned counsel for the petitioner
sought time to file necessary application and this Court granted
time. When the matter is listed today and when the application
is not filed to bring the LRs of respondent No.2 on record, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no need to
file any such application to bring the LRs of respondent No.2 on
record and only this Court insisted to file such application and
no provision in Cr.P.C. to file such application and the said
submission is also made raising the voice.
4. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the
FIR. Having perused the complaint PCR No.179/2020, based
on the PCR, the Trial Court passed an order referring the
matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. But no such order of the
Trial Court is placed before the Court while filing the petition.
This Court referred in its order dated 09.06.2021 that the
matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


submission was made before this Court while passing the order
on I.A.No.1/2020. Accordingly, FIR has been registered as per
Annexure-A and also proceedings is stayed for a period of six
weeks by this Court.
5. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner produces
the copy of the order sheet of the Trial Court after insisting the
same, wherein it is observed that the allegation made out in
the complaint requires investigation by the police. Hence, the
matter was referred to SHO for investigation under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is clear that there is a pre-
cognizance order invoking the jurisdiction under Section 156(3)
of Cr.P.C. referring the matter to the police. Having perused the
contents of the complaint, specific accusation is made against
the petitioner herein and consequent upon referring the matter
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the offences under Sections
200, 423, 404, 424, 120B, 421, 419, 426, 468, 467, 464 and
420 of IPC are invoked against the petitioner. Having perused
these offences, some of the offences are cognizable offences.
When the cognizable offences are invoked and specific
accusation is made and when the complainant is no more as

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


reported before the Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that without arraigning the legal heirs
of the complainant, the matter could be disposed of and there
is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. and again reiterating the
same inspite of this Court advised that the legal heirs of the
complainant to be brought on record with raising voice and the
submission is not the tenor of submissive.
6. Having considered the said submission and when
the cognizable offences are invoked against the petitioner, this
Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of CHAND DEVI DAGA AND OTHERS v.
MANJU K. HUMATANI AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 1
SCC 71 , wherein it is held that criminal complaint (relating to a
warrant case) on death of complainant during proceedings,
right of legal heirs of deceased complainant to continue to
prosecution and particularly taken note of the similar set of
facts and offences of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201
read with Section 34 of IPC and this judgment is aptly
applicable to the case on hand. But the learned counsel for the
petitioner makes the submission again inspite of referring the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


said judgment in the order that no need to bring the L.Rs. of
respondent No.2 on record. In paragraph No.14, the Apex
Court referred to the two Judge bench judgment in the case of
JIMMY JAHANGIR MADAN v. BOLLY CARIYAPPA HINDLEY
reported in (2004) 12 SCC 509, wherein it is held that the
question as to whether the heirs of the complainant can be
allowed to file an application under Section 302 of the Code to
continue the prosecution is no longer res integra as the same
has been concluded by a decision of this Court in ASHWIN
NANUBHAI VYAS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , reported in
AIR 1967 SC 983, in which case the Court was dealing with a
case under Section 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898, which is corresponding to Section 302 of the Code. In
that case, it was laid down that upon the death of the
complainant, under the provisions of Section 495 of the said
Code, mother of the complainant could be allowed to continue
the prosecution. It was further laid down that she could make
the application either herself or through a pleader.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the heirs themselves have

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


not filed the applications to continue the prosecution, rather the
same have been filed by their power of attorney holders.
7. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, it is very clear that in a case of
warrant case, in the absence of legal heirs on the death of the
complainant during the proceedings, right of legal heirs of the
deceased complainant to continue prosecution. Hence, the
very submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot
be accepted.
8. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas (supra) is clear that the said
judgment was considered subsequently in the year 2018 by the
Apex Court in the case of Chand Devi Daga (supra). The
Apex Court in the case of HARMAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH reported in (1973) 3 SCC 343
discussed with regard to abatement of criminal appeal on death
of accused and discussed in a similar set of circumstances in
case of death of accused.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


9. When such being the case, even inspite of this
Court granted three adjournments to make an application, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no need to
file such application, but submits in a raised voice that only this
Court has insisted to bring the legal heirs of respondent No.2
on record and the learned counsel is not ready to even hear the
advice of the Court and questioned the authority of this Court.
The very conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
deprecated. When such being the submission made before this
Court and when the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
ready to make necessary application inspite of sufficient
opportunity is given, the very submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the matter has to be considered
on merits cannot be accepted. Without giving an opportunity
to the legal heirs which has to be continued on account of
death of the complainant, that cannot be done. Without
arraigning the LRs. of the complainant, there cannot be any
proceedings and hence, no ground is made out to consider the
matter on merits and the learned counsel expressed the
dissatisfaction before the Court in a rude manner.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
11. Inspite of this Court passed a detailed order, the
learned counsel for the petitioner still insists the Court not to
pass such order. The very conduct of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is deprecated and hence, it is a case for initiating
the criminal contempt proceedings against the learned counsel
for the petitioner in order to protect the respect of this
institution and he cannot expect an order as he likes and duty
of the advocate is to assist the Court and cannot insist the
Court to pass an order in his favour. Hence, the Registrar
General is directed to initiate the contempt proceedings against
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The very conduct of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is deprecated in making such
submission and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
adhering to the principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra and instead of behaved in a rude manner before this
Court. Hence, initiate contempt proceedings suo motu against
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The very conduct of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing but questioning the
authority of this Court when this Court has passed an order

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59045
CRL.P No. 7531 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010386322020


based on the judgments of the Supreme Court, which have
been referred supra.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12