Karnataka High Court
Mr. Nandeesha. M 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
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
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
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
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
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:46868
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
CT:SI
