IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8207 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Anand Bhatia, S/o. Kanayalal Bhatia, Aged about 57 years, 2. Ms. Saraswati Bhatia, D/o. Radhakrishna Asrani, Aged about 83 years, 3. Ms. Alpana Bhatia, W/o. Anand Bhatia, Aged about 52 years, All are residing at Nos.71 & 72, Royal Enclave Phase – 1, Srirampura Village, Jakkur (P), Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru – 64. …Petitioners (By Sri. Dhananjay Joshi, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Through Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru.
2. M/s. Dimension Digital Controls Pvt. Ltd. Having its registered office at No.134/1, 2nd Floor, Brigade Road, Next to Brigade Towers, Bengaluru – 560 025.
Represented by Sri. Mahaveer K.B., General Manager ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1, Sri. S. Vinod, Advocate for R2 – absent) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the impugned charge sheet filed in Crime No.664/2013 on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 before the XLIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. After submitting arguments for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners’ seeks to withdraw the petition in so far as petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) is concerned. The submission is placed on record. Petition filed by petitioner No.1 (accused no.2) – Sri. Anand Bhatia, is dismissed.
3. In so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that neither the complaint nor the charge-sheet contains any allegations against these petitioners constituting offences under Sections 420 and 120B r/w 34 of IPC. Merely on the ground that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 happened to be the Directors of the accused No.1-Company, they have been implicated in the alleged offences.
4. The submission canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioners is well founded. A reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet indicate that the material allegations are directed only against accused No.2. In para 5 of the complaint it is stated that accused No.2 assured and promised to allot shares to the complainant for the purpose of investment in accused No.1-company and requested some time to issue share certificates, that after lapse of one month, the complainant contacted the accused No.2 and asked him to issue share certificate, then accused No.2 requested for some time since there were some procedural delay in allotment of shares and issuing share certificates, that the complainant believed his words and granted some more time to the accused persons.
5. These allegations rule out the complicity of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) in the alleged offences. Hence, having regard to the allegations made in the charge-sheet and the materials collected in support thereof, in my view, prosecution of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) for the above offences is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by petitioner No.1 (accused Nos.2) – Sri. Anand Bhatia, is dismissed. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) – Smt.Saraswati Bhatia and Smt.Alpana Bhatia, is allowed. Proceedings pending on the file of the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.54806/2016 arising out of Crime No.664/2013, is hereby quashed only in so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE SV