Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/398/2024 of BINISH THOMAS Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010010602024 NC: 2026:KHC:51745 CRL.P No. 398 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 398 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. BINISH THOMAS S/O C.M. THOMAS AGED ABIOUT 47 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 398 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.
BINISH THOMAS
S/O C.M. THOMAS
AGED ABIOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : BUSINESS
R/AT NO.B4, 418-M-122,
MALAPRABHA BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA NATIONAL
GAMES HOUSE COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 095.
2.
JIKKU JOSEPH
S/O JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCCUPATION : PRIVATE WORK
R/A NO.96, SHAMANNA LAYOUT,
5TH CROSS ROAD,
OLD MILL ROAD,
ARVIND NAGAR,
BANGALORE CITY 560 084.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAL POLICE STATION
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2.
LAWRENCE JOSEPH
S/O LATE C.O JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/A NO.69,
S.L.S VILLA
HORAMAVU AGRA
BANGALORE 560 043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.K.RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE XXIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU REFERRING
THE MATTER TO SHO OF HAL POLICE STATION FOR
INVESTIGATION U/S 156(3) OF CR.P.C. VIDE ORDER DATED
31.10.2023 IN CPR.NO.58078/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XXIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
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
The short question advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant, while filing the private complaint, had not filed the affidavit as required under the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that the affidavit has, in fact, been filed.
Even assuming that the affidavit has been filed, the learned Senior Counsel has raised another contention that the complainant has not complied with the requirement of Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. This contention also requires consideration by the learned Magistrate.
Reserving such liberty, petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1