[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sachidanandamurthy V C vs Sri. B Satish on 7 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:777
CRL.RP No. 268 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 268 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI SACHIDANANDAMURTHY V.C
S/O T. CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT PERMANENT ADDRESS
UDUKUNTE POST, SOLURU HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RES NO.281, 10TH CROSS
OPP. B.C.C. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BUS STAND
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALURU - 560 040
MOB 9449448696
EMAIL: [email protected].
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIDANANDA MURTHY V.C. - PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. SRI B. SATISH
Digitally S/O BYRALINGAIAH
signed by R/AT PERMANENT ADDRESS
NANDINI M S
UDUKUNTE POST, SOLURU HOBLI
Location:
HIGH COURT MAGADI TALUK - 562 127
OF AGED 38 YEARS, DRIVER
KARNATAKA RES NO.331, 11TH BLOCK, BDA LAYOUT
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 072
MOB 9019772034.
2. RAYAPPA S.H
HC-83 KUDUR POLICE STATION
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.
3. ESHWARAPPA
S/O GANGAPPA NAGARARURU
DASANAPURA HOBLI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:777
CRL.RP No. 268 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
C/O SATISH B.
4. KARTHIK @ VISHNU PRASAD
S/O SUBBARAO
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO.83, 5TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 072.
5. BASAVARAJU
S/O RUDRASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
NO.25, VINAYAKA LAYOUT 9TH BLOCK
NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 072.
6. RAJANNA
S/O GANGHADHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT UDUKUNTE VILLAGE
AND POST, SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127.
7. NANJAPPA
S/O REVENA SIDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
284, UDUKUNTE POST, SOLURU HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK, RESIDING AT UDUKUNTE
VILLAGE AND POST, SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127.
8. V.P. PRAKASH
S/O PUTTAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
9. RAVI KUMAR
S/O NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
10 . CHALUVAIAH
S/O CHENNERAYAPPA @KUMBALAIH.
NOTE: FROM SL NO.6 TO 10 ARE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:777
CRL.RP No. 268 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT UDUKUNTE VILLAGE
AND POST, SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127.
11 . GALIGOPURAIAH
S/O MAHIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
12 . SHIVAKUMAR
S/O GALUGOPURAIAH
AGED BOUT 35 YEARS.
NOTE: SL. NO.11 AND 12 R/AT
MAHIMAIAHNA PALYA UDUKUNTE
VILLAGE AND POST, SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127
V.H. GANGADHARAIAH
S/O HONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
UDUKUNTE VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK - 562 127.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S. NAGARAJAN, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-3 TO R-5;
SRI H. JAYARAMA SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-6 TO R-10 & R-12;
R-2 & R-11 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W
SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN
PCR.NO.187/2022, DATED 29.11.2024 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
143, 109, 504, 506, 120B, 203, 211, 167, 192, 499 R/W 34 OF IPC,
ANNEXURE-C AND REMAND THE SAME FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION
BY THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON
05.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read
with 401 of Cr.PC is filed with a prayer to set aside the order
dated 29.11.2024 passed in PCR.No.187/2022 by the Court of
Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara District.
2. Heard the petitioner - party in person and the learned
Counsel for the respondents.
3. Petitioner herein has filed a private complaint in
PCR.No.187/2022 before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Magadi, Ramanagara District, against the respondents alleging
that they have committed the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 109, 120B, 504, 506, 167, 203, 192, 211, 499
read with 34 IPC.
4. The gist of allegations made against the accused is, that
accused no.1 had filed a false criminal case against the
petitioner, and accused no.2 had colluded with accused no.1
and had filed a charge sheet in the said case against the
petitioner and a criminal case was registered against the
petitioner in CC.No.222/2012 for the offences punishable under
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
Sections 324, 506 IPC. Petitioner had filed a discharge
application in the said case, which was allowed. Accused nos.3
to 5 along with accused no.1 allegedly had trespassed into the
property of the petitioner and assaulted him. In respect of the
said incident, petitioner appears to have filed a complaint
before the jurisdictional police and FIR was registered in Crime
No.152/2011 and the accused in the said case were charge-
sheeted in CC.No.39/2012. Accused nos.6 to 12 are the
persons who allegedly had give a false statement against the
petitioner before the police, which had resulted in filing of
charge sheet in CC.No.222/2012. According to the petitioner,
though accused no.1 and accused nos.3 to 5 are the culprits,
accused no.2 colluded with them and had registered a false
criminal case against him and also had filed charge sheet in
CC.No.222/2012. It is under these circumstances, private
complaint was filed by the petitioner in PCR.No.187/2022. The
Trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the
petitioner, heard him and vide the impugned order, in exercise
of its powers under Section 203 of Cr.PC, dismissed the private
complaint. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this
Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
5. Petitioner - party in person having reiterated the grounds
urged in the petition, submits that petitioner was wrongly
charge-sheeted in CC.No.222/2012. In the criminal case which
was registered against accused no.1 and accused nos.3 to 5,
petitioner was summoned to the police station and coerced to
settle the matter. Since the petitioner did not oblige and heed
to the request made by accused no.2, a false complaint was
registered against him. The Trial Court having appreciated
these aspects of the matter had discharged him in the said
case. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the
aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in dismissing the
private complaint.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that petitioner is in the habit of filing false
complaints and he is a court bird. Petitioner also had filed a
criminal complaint against accused no.1 and accused nos.3
to 5. Accused nos.1 & 3 to 5 herein were tried in
CC.No.252/2011 based on the complaint given by the petitioner
and were acquitted. The judgment and order of acquittal
passed in CC.No.252/2011 has been upheld by this Court in
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
Crl.A.No.1595/2021. Petitioner had earlier filed a similar
complaint against accused no.1 and the Sub-Inspector of Police
of Kudur Police Station. The said complaint in PCR.No.56/2019
was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and the order of
dismissal passed in PCR.No.56/2019 was upheld by this Court
in Crl.P.No.5184/2021 disposed of on 07.09.2022. Thereafter,
the present complaint is filed against accused no.1 - B.Satish
and others, suppressing the fact of filing the earlier complaint
in PCR.No.56/2019. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
petitioner herein was discharged in CC.No.222/2012 taking into
consideration that though FIR was initially registered against
the petitioner and 7 to 8 other persons, charge sheet was filed
only as against him, though the Investigation Officer had not
recorded the further statement of the complainant/first
informant. Therefore, there was no material as to why the
other accused persons were not charge-sheeted. Further, the
learned Magistrate had also taken into consideration that in the
first information, the alleged presence of the eye-witnesses i.e.,
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
CWs-2 to 7 was at all mentioned, and therefore, it was
apparent that the said eye-witnesses were planted eye-
witnesses. Further, the Trial Court had also taken into
consideration that there were multiple litigations pending
between the parties and it is under these circumstances, the
petitioner was discharged in CC.No.222/2012. A specific
observation was made in the said case that the investigation
conducted in the said case was defective and sufficient material
was not collected by the Investigation Officer to charge sheet
the petitioner herein for the alleged offences in
CC.No.222/2012.
8. Merely for the reason that the petitioner has been
discharged in the said case, it cannot be said that he was
maliciously prosecuted. The learned Magistrate while
discharging the petitioner in the said case, has observed that
the investigation conducted in the said case was not
satisfactory and though the Investigation Officer had not
collected sufficient material to charge sheet the petitioner for
the alleged offences, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the
said case.
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
9. The material on record would go to show that after the
petitioner was discharged in CC.No.222/2012, he had filed a
private complaint in CC.No.56/2019 against accused no.1 -
B.Satish and L.Srinivas - Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudur Police
Station, Ramanagara District. The allegation in the said
complaint is similar to the allegations found in the present
private complaint. The said complaint was dismissed by the
learned Magistrate and the order of dismissal passed in
PCR.No.56/2019 has been confirmed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.5184/2021. It is not in dispute that the order passed
by this Court in Crl.P.No.5184/2021 disposed of on 07.09.2022
has attained finality. It is only after dismissal of
Crl.P.No.5184/2021, petitioner has filed the present private
complaint in PCR.No.187/2022 making similar allegations
against the accused in the present case. The sum and
substance of the allegations made by the petitioner in
PCR.No.56/2019 as well as in PCR.No.187/2022 appears to be
one and the same.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid, though the Trial Court has
dismissed the private complaint vide the order impugned on a
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:777
HC-KAR
different reasoning, I am of the opinion that the order
impugned does not call for interference.
11. In addition to the same, the punishment for the offence
under Section 192 IPC is provided under Section 193 of IPC.
The offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC is covered
under the bar provided under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.PC, and
therefore, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section
193 IPC cannot be taken on the complaint of the petitioner. The
complaint in respect of the other alleged offences in the present
case, prima facie appears to be barred by limitation and is
therefore hit by Section 468 of Cr.PC. Under the circumstances,
I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for
interference though the complaint has been dismissed by the
Trial Court on a different reasoning. Accordingly, the following
order:
12. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
