The court upheld the validity of charges against the accused, confirming that a prima facie case existed, dismissing the petition to quash the proceedings.

ORAL ORDER :

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.14792/2020 on the file of 37^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 , 354, 504, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC (arising out of Cr.No.39/2020 of Banashankari PS).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 to 3 have contended that based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant, the concerned police have registered case in Cr.No.39/2020 and after conducting investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.14792/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 , 354, 504, 506, 509, r/w 34 IPC. However, while taking cognizance the trial Court has simply affixed the signature to the typed matter. There is no application of mind. Initially, the complaint was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506, which are non-cognizable. However, the investigating officer has not secured the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate and as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The ingredients of Section 354 , 353 and 509 are not made out. A false complaint is filed in retaliation to the civil and criminal proceedings initiated against respondent No.2/complainant. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Behram Bomanji Dubash and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Behram Bomanji Dubash, 2010 Crl.L.J 3963

(ii) S.L.Haleshappa Vs. The State by Lokayuktha Police and Anr. (S.L.Haleshappa, Crl.P.No.10263/2021 Dt: 25.05.2022

5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant contended that respondent No.2/complainant is working as Account Superintendent, Deputy Controller (Finance South), BBMP since July 2015. Accused persons who are brothers are BBMP contractors. In this connection they came to be acquainted with respondent No.2/complainant. On 11.07.2020, respondent No.2/complainant filed complaint alleging that when their relationship was good, the accused persons have taken photographs of the respondent No.2/complainant and started forcing her to pass their bills illegally. When she refused to pass certain bills, as they have failed to pay ESI and PF of their workers and GST to the Government, accused persons started giving threat to her saying that they would publish her photographs as though respondent No.2/complainant is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 A.B.Girish.

5.1 Accused have also abused her and given threat to her life. They are in the habit of making lewd remarks against respondent No.2/complainant. Once, when she was proceeding with her brother-in-law and her two friends, accused persons tried to drag her and gave threat. They are also making allegations that respondent No.2/complainant is having illicit relationship with other contractors. They are preventing her from discharging her duties.

5.2 In fact on 09.06.2020, respondent No.2/complainant had filed a complaint with Basavanagudi Women P.S. Since, accused persons gave statements undertaking not to repeat, she withdrew the complaint and she was issued with endorsement dated 17.06.2020. However, after the said complaint was wit