Karnataka High Court
Mr. Vishwanath. N vs State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10782 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10797 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P NO. 10782/2025:
BETWEEN:
MR. NANDEESHA. M
S/O MR H. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT VADERAMANCHANAHALLI,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560083.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
COURT OF SRI. MOHAN H.S., ADVOCATES)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. MRS SREENIDHI S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VABASANDRA VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025
HC-KAR
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. DEEPAK M. ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.196/2025, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 118(1), 352,
351(2), 140(2), 150, 190 OF BNS ACT, UNDER SECTION 25 OF
ARMS ACT, ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT ANEKAL POLICE
STATION PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC COURT, AT ANEKAL.
IN CRL.P NO. 10797/2025:
BETWEEN:
MR. VISHWANATH. N
S/O MR. NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6,
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
1ST CROSS,
NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE,
RATHNAMMA LAYOUT,
MANORAYANA PALYA,
BANGALORE-560032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. MOHAN H. S., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. MR. SREENIDHI
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VABASANDRA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. DEEPAK M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C (UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.196/2025
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 140(2), 150, 190 OF BNS,
UNDER SECTION 25 OF ARMS ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR., DN.,) AND JMFC COURT, AT
ANEKAL.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings pending in Crime No.196/2025 of Anekal Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 140(2), 150 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.07.2025, at about 10.20p.m., a complaint came to be registered based on the statement of the second respondent/complainant. It is alleged that on the morning of the same day, while the complainant was waiting at the Anekal Court premises, two unknown persons forcibly pushed him inside a Scorpio car parked nearby, blindfolded him, assaulted him, and abducted him. It is further alleged that during the incident, one of the accused threatened him with a firearm and directed him to register -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR his property in favour of accused No.1 - Padmanab Rao and threatened to harm him and his family members if he refused to comply.
3. The complainant alleges that he was thereafter taken to the Sub-Registrar's Office at Anekal where his relatives namely, Padmanab Rao, Ram Prasad, Suguna, and Latha were already present, having executed certain documents. Under threat, he was compelled to sign papers. He, however, managed to escape and subsequently lodged a complaint at the Anekal Police Station. The police, upon visiting the Sub-Registrar's Office, could not find the alleged accused. The complainant also produced medical records from Anekal Hospital evidencing injuries sustained in the assault.
4. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.8, 9, and 10 were arrested. In their voluntary statements, the accused disclosed that the kidnapping was carried out at the instance of two advocates, Nandish and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR Vishwanath, who had promised them a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- for executing the said plan and had already paid an advance of Rs.3,00,000/-.
5. Accused No.1 - Padmanab Rao in his own statement also implicated advocates Nandish and Vishwanath, stating that they had assured him of settling a pending civil dispute with the complainant's family for a consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-, out of which he had paid Rs.20,00,000/- through bank transfer and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, who are practicing advocates, contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated merely because they represented accused No.1 - Padmanab Rao in several civil disputes with the complainant's family. It is submitted that the petitioners were engaged professionally in O.S. No.692/2025, as also in prior suits O.S. Nos.2057/2006 and 170/2006, and that all financial transactions between -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR the parties were in the nature of professional fees and not for any illegal purpose.
7. It is contended that the only material sought to implicate the petitioners is the alleged confessional statements of co-accused, which have no evidentiary value in the absence of any independent corroboration. It is further submitted that there is no recovery or documentary material to connect the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offences and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24], to contend that when the allegations are manifestly absurd and inherently improbable, the FIR ought to be quashed.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioners showing their complicity in the crime. It is pointed out that there exists independent material in the form of CCTV footage from a restaurant dated 01.07.2025, which captures the meeting between the complainant and the present petitioners along with co-accused Vishwanath, during which the complainant is said to have handed over Rs.8,00,000/- in cash towards "settlement."
9. It is further submitted that the call detail records of the petitioners and the complainant corroborate their frequent telephonic communication prior to and immediately after the incident. The WhatsApp messages exchanged between the petitioner and the complainant, wherein the petitioner threatened to file a private complaint, also strengthen the chain of circumstances pointing to the petitioners' involvement. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. It is therefore argued that this is not a case for quashing, as the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose the petitioners' active participation in the conspiracy and the subsequent abduction.
11. Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petition does not merit interference at this stage for the following reasons:
12. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are of a grave and serious nature involving kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy to extort money. These are not mere professional lapses but criminal acts that strike at the root of public confidence in the legal profession.
13. The materials on record, including CCTV footage showing the meeting between the petitioners and the complainant, as well as call detail records evidencing frequent contact, provide prima facie corroboration to the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR prosecution's case. The same cannot be brushed aside at the threshold merely on the ground that the petitioners are advocates.
14. Having regard to the material placed on record and the rival contentions urged, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are of a grave and serious nature, involving offences of kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, has collected call detail records evidencing frequent telephonic communication between the petitioners and the complainant. It is not in dispute that the complainant and accused No.1, who is represented by the petitioners in the civil proceedings, are adversarial parties. The fact that the petitioners, who are advocates engaged by accused No.1 are alleged to be in constant telephonic contact with the complainant, coupled with the CCTV footage showing a meeting between the petitioners and the complainant shortly prior to the alleged incident,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR are circumstances that prima facie warrant a thorough and fair investigation.
15. At this juncture, the materials available disclose that the petitioners were allegedly in communication both with the complainant and with accused No.1, and that a substantial sum of money is alleged to have changed hands in connection with the purported "settlement" of the dispute. The complaint specifically alleges that the accused had hired persons to abduct and threaten the complainant, and that the petitioners, being the advocates of accused No.1, played a crucial role in facilitating or abetting the said acts under the guise of settling the dispute.
16. Whether the petitioners' involvement was limited to rendering professional legal advice or whether they actively participated in the criminal conspiracy, and whether the payment made by accused No.1 to the petitioners was towards legitimate legal fees or for an illegal consideration connected with the alleged
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR kidnapping, are matters that fall squarely within the domain of investigation.
17. The Investigating Officer is duty-bound to examine these aspects in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooja Pal v. Union of India and others [(2016)3 SCC 135] and to adhere to the procedural safeguards while conducting investigation into offences of this nature. At this stage, having perused the slender yet significant material collected, this Court finds no ground to interdict the ongoing investigation merely because the petitioners are members of the legal fraternity.
18. It is well settled that the immunity available to an advocate extends only to acts done in good faith within the scope of professional duty, and cannot be stretched to cover actions that fall outside the boundaries of lawful professional conduct. The very fact that the petitioners maintained constant contact with the complainant who
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR was on the opposite side in the litigation and that there are specific allegations about their involvement in events leading up to the alleged kidnapping, requires a detailed and impartial investigation.
19. This Court is conscious of the settled position that the confession of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence at the stage of trial to convict another accused, unless duly corroborated. However, such a statement cannot be rendered wholly irrelevant during investigation. The Investigating Officer is entitled to consider such statements for the limited purpose of unearthing the truth, and to test their veracity by collecting independent and corroborative material. Therefore, the confession of the co-accused may serve as a starting point enabling the Investigating Officer to secure credible evidence even against the petitioners, if such evidence exists.
20. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, which deal with the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46868 CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025 HC-KAR parameters for exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings, do not apply to the present case. This Court finds that the factual matrix herein warrants investigation and therefore, the petitioners cannot seek quashing of proceedings at this nascent stage of investigation. It is well-settled that at the stage of investigation, the High Court should refrain from embarking upon an appreciation of evidence or adjudging the veracity of allegations. When the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the investigation is in progress, the same ought not to be stifled prematurely.
21. The guiding principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) do not permit quashing where the allegations, if taken at their face value, constitute an offence and require investigation.
ORDER i. Both the Criminal Petitions stand dismissed.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
CRL.P No. 10782 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 10797 of 2025
HC-KAR
ii. The Investigating Officer is directed to
conduct a thorough, fair, and
expeditious investigation into the role of the petitioners and other accused, uninfluenced by their professional status.
iii. Observations made herein are for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present petitions and shall not influence the trial or investigation.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4 CT:SI