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.8208 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 Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru.
2. Mr. Narasimha Murthy, S/o. Dr. Bheemasenacharya, Aged about 61 years, Residing at No.9, 1st Main, Amarajyothi Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 094. ...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 FIR registered as Crime No.311/2015 on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 before the VIII 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 FIR contains any allegations against these petitioners constituting offences under Sections 120B, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Merely on the ground that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 happened to be the Directors of accused No.1-Company, they have been implicated in the alleged offences.
4. The submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is well founded. A reading of the FIR indicates 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 the accused No.1-company and requested some time to issue share certificates. It is stated therein that after lapse of one month, the complainant contacted accused No.2 and asked him to issue share certificate and accused No.2 requested some more time since there were some procedural delay in allotment of shares and issuing share certificates; 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 FIR, 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. FIR in Crime No.311/2015, is hereby quashed only in so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) are concerned.
Liberty is reserved to petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) to seek for his discharge on such grounds available under law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV