IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 34248 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. SURESH BABU. C. B.

S/O BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT: PETE BEEDI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR 572214 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CLIVE JOHNS QUADROS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Location: Hi gh Court of REP BY CCB (WPW) SQUAD Karnataka (CYBER CRIME PS), BENGALURU - 560 027

2. SUDHEENDRA REDDY (DE FACTO COMPLAINANT)

S/O PAPPANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. NO. 1828, 14^TH CROSS, 23^RD MAIN, SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560102

3. MADHURAJ S/O MUTTUMADASHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.718

5^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJUNAGAR, M.C LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560040.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO MODIFY AND RELAX THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XLV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN CC NO. 3090/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the conditions imposed while answering an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner gets involved indirectly in a crime in Cr.No.40/2020, which was then pending as C.C.No.3090/2021. The accused and the complainant were different. Only the vehicle that belonged to the petitioner was involved in the crime of a commercial transaction between the accused and the complainant. The concerned Court closed the proceedings against the accused on the complainant and the accused entering into a truce. The observations of the concerned Court in Crl.RP.No.251/2021 would assume significance. It reads as follows:

”21. If the trial is conducted by wasting judicial time no purpose would be served and the wrong which is alleged is purely in private nature. The present revision petitioner in this case cheated the complainant to procure the Chairmanship of KSRTC and took Rs. 1 crore, but could not secure it. It is immaterial whether the said amount is paid back or not paid back, but there has been compromise voluntarily by the aggrieved person and the person who involved in the offence. In such cases no purpose would be served to conduct the prosecution at the cost of State Exchequer. The trial court has totally ignored this basic concept compounding the offence before the trial would facilitate the court also to reduce pendency."

3. The concerned Court observes that it would be waste of judicial time to try the said offence in the light of the settlement between the parties. The petitioner, after the closure of the proceedings, files an application for release of the vehicle in his favour. The concerned Court by the impugned order allows the application by imposing the following conditions:

"ORDER The application filed by the petitioner is allowed as follows:

The petitioner is permitted to sell the Land Rover Sport car 3.0 bearing Reg.No.KA- 04-MW-0123 by executing indemnity bond for sum of Rs.1 Crore and two sureties for like sum.

The I.O. is directed to conduct the panchanama and take the photo of the vehicle. He is directed to take note of the specification of the car and to submit the same to the court without any delay. The order is operating only after these panchanama, photo and details about the specification of the vehicle are produced to the court.

In case if this court comes to the conclusion that the vehicle is also purchased out of the proceeds of the crime, in the late stage, the petitioner is liable to pay the loss to the de-facto complainant."

The petitioner is aggrieved by all the conditions that are imposed while allowing the application.

4. Learne