Writ Petition No. 22746 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 22746 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. C. GANESH NARAYAN S/O LATE MR.C.V. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO. 44, OSBORNE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560042. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.N.PHANEENDRA, SR.COUNSEL FOR KUM. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01 2. KESHAV KUMAR ADULT FATHERS NAME SURESH SINGH NO.10, GROUND FLOOR, ALPINE ARCH, 22/1, LANGFORD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560025. 3. SANJU THAPA ADULT NO. 10, GROUND FLOOR, ALPINE ARCH, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR 22/41, LANGFORD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560025.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.HITESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI.MANDEEP KALRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD 17.02.2023 FILED BY THE R2 AND 3, BEFORE THE R1, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint, FIR in Cr.No.15/2023 of Commercial Street police station and consequent case registered in C.C.No.57961/2023, on the file of 29th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is a reputed businessman and the Director of C Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Pvt. Ltd ('Company' for short), engaged in business of jewellery located in 'B' Block of The Touchstone Building, wherein C. Ganesh Narayana HUF is the sole and absolute owner of property situated in 'B' Block. 3. Petitioner, his mother Smt Valli Narayan, ("The Narayans") along with his family members, viz, Dr C.Vinod Hayagriv, Sri. C.V.Hayagriv, Mrs C.Triveni Vinod, Smt. C. Visala Hayagriv and Sri. Shreyas.V.Cotha ("The Hayagrivs") run a jewellery business in the name of C Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd in 'A' Block of Touchstone Building. C. Ganesh Narayana HUF, is the owner of said property. Several differences have cropped up between Narayan's, and Hayagriv’s. In this background Hayagriv’s are in the habit of filing false and frivolous suits - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR and proceedings against Narayan’s to threaten and harass them. 4. On 16.02.2023, it came to the knowledge of petitioner that the Hayagriv’s have set up a CCTV camera in petitioner’s property facing the entrance to petitioner's store. When he tried to get it removed, respondent Nos.2 and 3 for no reason began to threaten him and his employees not to remove the same. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not employed by the company or the petitioner. They are the employees of Hayagriv’s. At the instance of Hayagriv’s, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 began harassing the petitioner and further restrained him from removing the CCTV set up in his property. They attacked and abused a group of petitioners employees viz Drivers and Property Manager near the security cabin of HUF property. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are guards of Eagle Security Agency. They also threaten the petitioner that he should not enter the store of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd, of which he is a Director and entitled for lawful - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR entry and that they have instructions from Sri Vinod Hayagriv to restrain the petitioner from entering the 'A' Block property. Respondents began to take videos of petitioner to mock him. In order to protect his privacy, petitioner attempted to cover his face and to stop the respondents from taking his videos. It enraged the respondents. They started abusing and attempted to push and assault him. 4.1 Earlier i.e., in the month of April 2018 also, the security guards committed similar offence and he has filed complaint in Cr.No.68/2018 and it is pending. In December 2019, Sri. Vinod Hayagriv attempted to trespass into the petitioner's premises and a complaint is filed. On 21.01.2023, Sri. Vinod Hayagriv filed O.S.No.1265/2023 against petitioner. It is partly decreed. Against it MFA.No.2343/2025 is filed and the said order is partly modified. The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him urging the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR GROUNDS (a) The complaint is filed at the behest Hayagrivs'. The jewel business in the name and style Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd is run in 'A' Block by Narayans' and Hayagrivs', whereas the business in the 'B' Block is run by Narayans' alone. Several differences have cropped up between Narayans' and Hayagrivs'. The Hayagrivs' are in the habit of filing false and frivolous suit and proceedings against Narayans'. (b) The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He is a law abiding citizen. There are no substantial grounds warranting filing of complaint by respondent Nos.2 and 3. On the other hand they trespassed into the petitioner's property and restrained him. They have filed false complaint at the behest of Hayagrivs'. The ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 427, 504, 506, r/w Section 34 IPC are not attracted. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21613 WP No. 22746 of 2023 HC-KAR (c) So far as electronic evidence is concerned, certificate under Section 35B is not produced. The material object i.e., torn shirt is not produced. No wound certificate are produced. All the witnesses are employees of Sri C.Krishnaiah Chetty and Sons Pvt. Ltd. One of the witness Rajdeep Das has also filed a complaint in Cr.No.44/2023 to further harass the petitioner. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and hence, the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned Senior counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Order Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (Pepsi Foods)1 (ii) Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors. (Mehmood)2 (iii) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI. (Sunil Bharti Mittal)3
Decision
ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) It is made clear that the trial Court shall proceed with the matter without being influenced by the observations made during the course of this order. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE