SRI. RAMA KRISHNA RARU @ v. Location: HIGH

STATE BY HALASOORU POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REP BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560001.

2. SRI. SANDEEP PARAMESHARAIH S/O PARAMESWARAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT.NO.361, 10TH CROSS, NEW BYAPPANHALLI, BANGALORE-560018. (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35000 CRL.P No. 12378 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE HALASURU POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IN CC.NO.62440/2023 (CR.NO.196/2021), FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 365, 384, 419, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN PENDING ON THE FILE OF LD. 10TH ADDL. CMM AT BANGALORE CITY (MAYOHALL). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.4 seeking quashing proceedings pending C.C.No.62440/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 384, 419, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on

06.08.2021, one Sandeep Parameswaram lodged a complaint alleging that his friend, Diwakar Reddy (the victim), was staying along with his acquaintances, namely Sridhar Babu and Raja Ramesh Babu, at Royal Orchid Hotel, Manipal Center, M.G. Road, Bengaluru. It is alleged that at around 10:00 p.m., four to five unknown persons - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35000 CRL.P No. 12378 of 2025 HC-KAR arrived at the spot in a Mahindra vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-08-P-8055, engaged the victim in conversation, and thereafter, forcibly took him away in the said vehicle. On the basis of the said complaint, offences punishable under kidnapping and extortion came to be registered, and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet which is now numbered as C.C.No.62440/2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the complainant has not named accused No.4, who is the present petitioner, in the original complaint. It is therefore urged that, even if the charge sheet materials are accepted at their face value and taken in their entirety, no case is made out against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer without there being any prima facie material to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35000 CRL.P No. 12378 of 2025 HC-KAR FIR was lodged in the year 2021, and only after a lapse of nearly three years, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused, which by itself reflects mala fides. On these grounds, the learned counsel seeks quashing of the proceedings insofar as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned.

4. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, while referring to the charge sheet materials, submits that there is ample material to proceed even against accused No.4. She draws attention of the Court to paragraph 17 of the charge sheet, wherein the overt acts attributed to accused No.4 are specifically detailed. It is contended that the presence and active participation of accused No.4 is forthcoming from the charge sheet materials and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case. Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged, namely kidnapping and extortion, it is argued that this Court would not be justified in exercising - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35000 CRL.P No. 12378 of 2025 HC-KAR its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interdict the proceedings at the threshold.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on record, this Court has given its anxious consideration to the charge sheet materials.

6. The present petitioner, arraigned as accused No.4, along with other co-accused persons, stands charge- sheeted for offences relating to kidnapping and extortion. A perusal of the charge sheet materials discloses specific allegations attributing overt acts to the petitioner/accused No.4 in furtherance of the alleged incident. The mere fact that the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the FIR lodged by the de facto complainant at the earliest point of time, by itself, cannot be a ground to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is well-settled that non-mentioning of the name of an accused in the FIR is not fatal, if the investigation thereafter gathers sufficient material to establish the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35000 CRL.P No. 12378 of 2025 HC-KAR involvement of such accused in the commission of the offence.

7. As rightly contended by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the charge sheet materials prima facie reveal that the presence of accused No.4 on

06.08.2021 is specifically forthcoming. The documents relied upon by the prosecution, including the statements of witnesses, disclose circumstances which implicate the petitioner as being part of the group of accused who allegedly kidnapped the victim and attempted to extort money. Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated, or whether he had no role whatsoever in the incident, is essentially a matter that falls within the domain of the trial Court, to be determined on the basis of evidence led during trial. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence, nor record a finding of innocence in favour of the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35000 CRL.P No. 12378 of 2025 HC-KAR

8. In the light of the above, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The grounds urged do not justify exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

9. Accordingly, criminal petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61