Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/250/2026 of SHIVALINGAIAH Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010011402026 NC: 2026:KHC:54157 CRL.P No. 250 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 250 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O PUTTALINGE GOWDA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 250 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O PUTTALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAJATAKA,
BELLURU HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
PIN- 571418.
2.
MANJESH. S.
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, 3RD CROSS,
SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI,
NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU NORTH,
KARNATAKA 560073.
3.
SOWMYA. H. M.
W/O MANJESH.S,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, BHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
SIDEDAHALLI EXTENSION,
SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU NORTH, KARNATAKA 560073.
4.
BOMMANNA,
S/O VENKATAKAMEGOWDA,
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.08, 3RD CROSS,
SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI EXTENSION,
BENGALURU NORTH, KARANATAKA 560073.
5.
SHASHIKALA,
W/O BOMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.08, 3RD CROSS,
SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI EXTENSION, NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU NORTH, KARANATAKA-560073.
6.
PRASHANTH. B.
S/O BOMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.08, 3RD CROSS, SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, SIDEDAHALLI EXTENSION, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH, KARANATAKA-560073.
7.
NISCHITHA. H.
W/O PRASHANTH.B,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.08, 3RD CROSS,
SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI EXTENSION,
BENGALURU NORTH,
KARANATAKA-560073.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HEMANTHA B,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGALAGUNTE P.S,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLI PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560001.
2.
SMT.SHRILATHA.J,
W/O GANESHKUMAR.P.C,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7, 3RD CROSS,
SIDDESHWAR LAYOUT,
SIDEDAHALLI,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 560073.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL.SPP FOR R1, SRI VENUGOPAL M S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.30805/2025 (ARISING
OUT
OF
CRIME
NO.23/2023)
OF
RESPONDENT
NO.1
BAGALAGUNTE
POLICE,
FOR
THE
ALLEGED
OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149
OF IPC, AND SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXI
ACJM, AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
HC-KAR
2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.30805/2025 arising from Crime No.23/2023 filed by the Bagalagunte Police for the alleged offence under Sections 448, 425, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to the complaint, the police investigated the matter and filed a 'B' report.
4. Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and thereafter, an affidavit is filed in the form of an examination-in-chief and based on that, the cognizance is taken and the report is rejected.
5. It is the submission that the order taking cognizance is not a speaking order. The procedure adopted is erroneous.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the affidavit in lieu of sworn statement is not barred under law. The filing of affidavit is a curable defect and the Trial Court has taken it as a sworn statement and
HC-KAR
thereafter, the documents are marked pursuant to the statement recorded in the witness box, as such there is no legal error in passing the orders.
7. It is also submitted that when the complaint was lodged before the Police, only accused No.1 to 3 were named. However, in a private complaint, 7 accused are named.
8. The Court has considered the contentions raised and perused the records.
9. As can be seen the petitioners have filed an affidavit and based on the affidavit, the impugned order is passed rejecting the 'B' report and summons is issued to the accused.
10. The Court is of the view that the procedure adopted is erroneous. However, that cannot be the ground to quash the entire proceedings. The complainant should be permitted to record sworn statement before the Trial Court and thereafter, the Court has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
HC-KAR
11. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceeding No.C.C.No.30805/2025 of Bagalagunte Police is quashed.
(iii) The complainant is permitted to give his sworn statement before the Trial Court and after considering his sworn statement and any other materials to be placed by the complainant, the Court shall pass a reasoned order assigning the reasons for rejecting the 'B' report in case if it is to be rejected and assigning the reasons for issuing the process in case the process is to be issued.
(iv) The Court shall also assign reasons in case the 'B' report is to be accepted.
(v) The Court shall also take note of the factor as to whether justifiable reasons are made out in the
HC-KAR
complaint to implead accused No. 4 to 7, who are not named in the complaint.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
brn List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10