Karnataka High Court
WP/20111/2026 of SHAILA SURESH BABU SHET Vs MR. SRIRAMALU NAIDU on 13 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35314 WP No. 20111 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20111 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHAILA SURESH BABU SHET W/O SURESH BABU CHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20111 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHAILA SURESH BABU SHET
W/O SURESH BABU CHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS
AT 12-5-542, DONGERKERY
MANGALURU-575003
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. SRIRAMALU NAIDU
S/O LATE BABU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT RAMA BHAVAN COMPLEX
KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575003
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH BHARADWAJ., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINT
DATED
16.02.2026
AND
THE
ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.45/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE JMFC (II COURT), MANGALURU, REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 356, 356(2), 356(3) AND 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY
Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NO. 1, SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED
ONLY AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
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 Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Girish Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "a. Quash the private complaint dated 16.02.2026 and the entire proceedings in PCR No.45/2026 pending on the file of the JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 356, 356(2), 356(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pursuant to the private complaint filed by pursuant to the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 insofar as petitioner concerned only as per Annexures-A and B; b. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the case of the co-accused, this Court has
HC-KAR
passed the following order in Crl.P.No.6703/2026 on 03.07.2026: “Petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the complaint dated 16-02-2026 and entire proceedings in PCR No.45 of 2026 pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sachin B.S., appearing for petitioners and learned counsel Sri Girish Bharadwaj appearing for the respondent.
3. A private complaint comes to be filed by the respondent against the petitioners herein and two others, for offences punishable under Section 356, 356(2), 356(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 i.e., Sections 499 and 500 of the earlier regime, the IPC. The moment the complaint is registered or even before the ink on the complaint could dry, the petitioners are before this Court calling in question the said proceedings, on the score that it causes grave prejudice to the petitioners. This Court, on 02-06-2026, granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings qua petitioner No.3.
4. The issue is admittedly at a pre-cognizance stage, therefore all the rights would be available to the petitioners to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora, in the event the concerned Court would take cognizance, in accordance with law or contrary to law, as the case would be.
HC-KAR
5. Therefore, reserving such liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum at a later point in time, keeping all contentions open, the petition stands disposed.”
4. In the light of the order so passed by this Court qua the co-accused, the petition stands disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum at a later point in time.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 243