IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.4675/2018 BETWEEN M/S OZONE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BEARYS HORIZEN, NO.21/1, WOOD STREET, ASHOKANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AGM ADMIN & FM AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI SHRIKANTH HIREMATH ...PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.KANNUR, SR. ADV. FOR SRI MOHAMMED ZULFIKHAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BANASHANAKARI POLICE STATION JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560011.
2. THE BENGALURU CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, NO.3, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU 560018 REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER PADMANABHANAGAR BRANCH SMT SHYLAJA B M …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI T.H.NARAYANA, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ACMM AT BANGALORE IN PCR NO.6268/2017, AND FURTHER QUASH ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2017 INCLUDING THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.326/2017 OF BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned HCGP.
2. Respondent no.2 has preferred a complaint before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioner who is arrayed as respondent no.3 on the premise of causing wrongful loss by practicing fraud. That the respondent no.2 had financed the purchase of a Mercedes Benz Car by accused no.1 and the necessary loan documents evidencing financial assistance have been executed by accused no.1 in favour of the complainant- respondent. That subsequently, accused nos.1 & 2 have fabricated certain documents and have alienated the car in favour of accused no.3 – petitioner herein. That the petitioner herein on the strength of the fabricated and concocted documents, has got transferred the vehicle in his name.
3. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVATSTAVA & ANOTHER VS STATE OF U.P.
& OTHERS – (2015)6 SCC 287, the instant complaint is not maintainable.
4. The Apex Court in the aforesaid ruling has been pleased to hold in paragraph 30 as under:
“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.”
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that liberty may be reserved to the respondent-complainant to comply with the mandate of law as settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid ruling and further prosecute accused nos.1 & 2.
6. The submission of the learned Counsel is placed on record.
7. The instant petition is allowed. The complaint registered as PCR No.6268/2017 pending on the file of IV ACMM, Bengaluru, and the FIR No.0326/2017 registered with the respondent no.1-Police, stands quashed. The quashment of the complaint and the FIR will not come in the way of the complainant-respondent in preferring a complaint in compliance with the law settled by the Apex Court as stated supra.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR