IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6853 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. M/S IDEB BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 9TH AND 10TH FLOORS, DELTA TOWERS, SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK NO.7 WHITE FIELD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. HARKIRAT SINGH BEDI 2. MR. HARKIRAT SINGH BEDI DIRECTOR, M/S IDEB BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED 9TH AND 10TH FLOORS, DELTA TOWERS, SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK NO.7 WHITE FIELD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 066 3. MRS. AVNEET BEDI DIRECTOR, M/S IDEB BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED 9TH AND 10TH FLOORS, DELTA TOWERS, SIGMA SOFT TECH PARK NO.7 WHITE FIELD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 066. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP, 2. MR. SUMIT GROWER S/O SHRI. CHARANJEET LAL GROWER, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O X-303, PURVA FAIRMONT, 24TH MAIN, SECTOR-2, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT: POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.151/2016 ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.689/2015 IN THE COURT OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-C) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1- State. Perused the records.
2. Second respondent herein initiated criminal action against the petitioners by filing a complaint under section 200 Crl.P.C. on the allegation that the petitioners herein induced respondent No.2/complainant to invest in their project by making a false representation that requisite sanction and approvals in respect of their project have been obtained from the concerned authority, but it later transpired that no license was obtained by the petitioners, on the other hand, project itself was shelved midway. The learned magistrate on receiving the complaint, referred the same for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. Having regard to the nature of allegations made in the complaint, in my view, it is not proper to interfere in the matter pending investigation. Hence, keeping open all the contentions urged by the petitioners, petition is liable to be dismissed insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. However, insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned, she is neither a signatory to the agreement nor is there any allegation in the complaint that she has made any false representation or inducement to the second respondent. She appears to have been arrayed as co-accused solely on the ground that she is one of the directors of accused No.1 company. In the absence of any material to show that petitioner No.3 viz., accused No.3 was in- charge of affairs of accused No.1 company at the relevant time and that she has made any inducement or false representation to the second respondent, in my view, the prosecution of petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is legally untenable and cannot be sustained. To this extent, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part.
a. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. Investigation shall proceed against accused Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law.
b. Petition filed by petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is allowed. FIR registered in Cr.No.151/2016 on the file of learned II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences under sections 415, 420 and 34 IPC is quashed only insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-