Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/3865/2020 of RAVI CHADDA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010230352020 NC: 2026:KHC:52615 CRL.P No. 3865 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3865 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS) BETWEEN: RAVI CHADDA, S/O YASHPAL CHADDA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3865 OF 2020
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
RAVI CHADDA,
S/O YASHPAL CHADDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.510,
7TH FLOOR BLOCK NO.7
KENDRIYA VIHAR
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.D. SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V. THUKARAMA RAO &
SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR K.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
SRI NANNE BABU VARSHNEY
S/O LATE MAKHANLAL VARSHNEY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O NO.09 VEERA PILLAI STREET,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
COMMERCIAL STREET
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1/STATE, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.50917/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO
HALL BENGALURU PERTAINING TO CRIME/FIR.NO.37/2020
DATED 02.03.2020 REGISTERED BEFORE COMMERCIAL STREET
POLICE
STATION,
BENGALURU
560001
AGAINST
THE
PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420 OF IPC AS
BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, FALSE, UNNECESSARY AND
BEING ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT FOR THE GROUNDS AND
REASON STATED IN THE PETITION (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the State. Though respondent no.2/complainant is served, he is unrepresented.
2. The prayer sought in this petition is to call for records in PCR No.50917/2020 and quash the very initiation of complaint in registering the case against the petitioner in Crime No.37/2020 in view of referring the matter under Section 156(3).
3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, a private complaint is filed and the same is entertained by the Magistrate, which is not supported by the Affidavit. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and so also the
HC-KAR
judgment of this Court in the case of MR.TARUN VARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2018) 1 KCCR
66.
4. The counsel would also submit that the v contents of the complaint averments is very clear that it is with regard to non payment of profit share and if the dispute amounts to civil in nature, question of invoking the offence under Section 420 of IPC does not arise. The learned Magistrate while referring the matter, fails to apply his mind though it is a pre-cognizance order and there cannot be any harassment by filing a false and frivolous complaint, that too, giving a criminal colour to the civil dispute with regard to the non payment of profit amount.
5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would submit that, in view of the reference made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the police have registered the case and this petitioner has approached this Court.
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, also the learned counsel appearing for the State and on perusal of records it discloses that private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., wherein the prayer is sought for invoking of Section 420 of IPC. When the matter was referred under Section 156(3) by the Court, the police registered the FIR in terms of Annexure-C, consequent to Annexure-B/complaint.
7. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complaint is not supported by the Affidavit. He relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA's case (supra) and the Apex Court in the said judgment has categorically held that when the proceedings is sought and while exercising the power under Section 156(3), even Sections 340 to 344, when such direction is sought, it must be supported by an Affidavit. The purpose of filing of such Affidavit is to prevent an abuse of process, which is
HC-KAR
becoming more common nowadays and it is the duty of the Magistrate while exercising power under Section 156(3), there must be pre-conditions to be satisfied. Prevention of abuse of process, vigilance required of Magistrate while considering the same, while quashment of FIR when the abuse of process and impugned FIR got registered against Statutory Authorities or by misusing remedy available, the Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. In the case on hand, having considered the contents of the complaint, it is very clear that the dispute is with regard to the non-payment of profit amount and if such being the case i.e., dispute is civil in nature with regard to the non-payment of profit, the criminal colour cannot be given to the civil dispute and it is nothing but giving a criminal colour to the civil dispute. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise, it amounts to an abuse of process.
HC-KAR
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.37/2020 on the file of XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, arising out of a private complaint, is hereby quashed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21