Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
J.M.KHAZI, J.
Mr. Ajai P Johnson, S/o Johnson PJ - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4533 of 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)), C/W Writ Petition No. 10496 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 09-09-2025
For the Appellant :SMT. RAJASHREE B, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, SMT.DEEPA JAYADEV, ADVOCATE
The court emphasized the necessity of a thorough investigation into allegations of forgery and emphasized the lack of grounds to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 149, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 - Petitioners sought to quash FIR alleging offences including conspiracy and forgery - Petitioners contended lack of ingredients for offences and asserted a civil nature of the dispute - The Court identified strong prima facie evidence justifying investigation into allegations - The relationship among parties acknowledged, with claims of forgery and false representation - Court determined investigation into allegations necessary, rejecting the likelihood of abuse of process. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Maintains authority to quash FIR only if no case is made out to proceed - The Court noted that no substantial evidence was found to support claims of abuse of process in this instance. (Paras 13)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused seek quashing of fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue lack of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments from respondents highlight allegations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court observes need for investigation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court finds prima facie case for investigation. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
J.M.KHAZI, J.
In W.P.No.10496/2023, the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3. Crl.P.No.4533/2023 is filed by one Ajay P.Johnson and Saji P.Johnson, both of whom are stated to be arraigned as accused No.5.
2. In these petitions, petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR in Cr.No.71/2023 of Upparpete PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 149 , 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 149 IPC.
3. In support of the petitions, the petitioners have contended that they have not committed the alleged offences. On the face of it the ingredients of the offences for which the case is registered are not made out. Respondent No.2 has neither challenged the order dated 22.04.2021 of the National Company Law Tribunal in CA(CCA)No.23/BB/2021 nor the report submitted by NSVM and Associates, Chartered Accountant, Statutory Auditors, overseeing amalgamation either before the NCLT or any other forum or Court. The averments of complainant with regard to her knowledge of amalgamation is implausible and cannot be relied upon as the report of NSVM and Associates, Chartered Accountants it is crystal clear that 12 out of 14 equity shareholders, other than 2 secured depositors of transferor company M/s Sukh Sagar Hotels Private Ltd have affixed their signatures. Complainant/respondent No.2 has filed several complaints against the petitioners i.e, Accused No1 to 3. Accused No.1 is a fragile, Sick and senior citizen. He is bedridden. The pendency of the case is causing immense trauma to him. Even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the document in question is forged, no harm or injury is caused to complainant/respondent No.2. Complainant/respondent No.2 has filed domestic violence case against accused Nos.1 to 3 and also a divorce petition in A.495/2021 before the Family Court, Mumbai against accused No.1.
4. So far as petitioners in Crl.P.No.4533/2023 are concerned, they have further averred that petitioner No.1 is a practicing advocate. Almost everyday he attend the Hon'ble High Court, NCLT and other Courts. They would be put to great hardship and embarrassment due to filing of false and frivolous case. In fact complainant/respondent No.2 is benefited by the amalgamation. The dispute is purely civil in nature and continuation of the same would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.
5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision in Sarita @ Sarika Narayan Tembhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
(Sarita), Crl.Application(APL)No.195/2025 (Judicature of Bombay)
6. It is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of the petitions, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in W.P.No.10496/2023 has died.
7. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are their sons. She is resident of Mumbai. There are multiple legal proceedings pending since they are indulged in criminal and illegal activities. When respondent No.2 was contemplating to take legal action against M/s Sukh Sagar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. for illegally removing her from the Directorship, she found that the said company is merged with RSP Gourmet Foods Pvt. Ltd. When she contacted her counsel as to how the amalgamation took place without her consent and knowledge and she being 8.55% shareholder, she received certified copy from the NCLT in CA(CCA)No.23/BB/2021 and CP(CCA)No.31/BB/2021.
7.1 After going through the same, she realized that accused Nos.1 to 3 have forged her signature and submitted a false and forged affidavit in order to chea
