ORDER

The petitioner in this petition calls in question proceedings in C.C.No.22055 of 2021 pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru arising out of crime No.81 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 417, 506, 201 r/w 34 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent/Smt. Sanna Boramma is the complainant and the petitioner/Supriya.R is the accused. The complainant is working as the Enforcement/Accounts Officer at the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (‘the Organization’ for short) and the petitioner is her subordinate working as Assistant Accounts Officer. The squabble is between the two. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent on 25-09-2020 alleging atrocities committed against her in the name of caste, criminal intimidation and extortion. The complaint is against one Ajay Rao and the petitioner. Ajay Rao is arrayed as accused No.1. The allegation is that the 2nd respondent receives a call on 24-09-2020 from a particular mobile number who introduces himself to be Ajay Rao, an Advocate practicing in Bangalore. During the course of call he is alleged to have played out some audio clips which contained some conversation with a fellow employee. According to the complaint the audio clip was not clear. The caller identifies himself being a friend of one Supriya R and the allegation is he made demand of money based on the said audio clips. On the complaint being filed, the Police registered a crime in Crime No.81 of 2020 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 506, 389, 384 r/w 34 of the IPC. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the matter is now pending in C.C.No.22055 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 417, 506 and 201 r/w 34 of the IPC. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no substance in the allegations contained in the complaint made against the petitioner. All the allegations touch upon a call received from one Ajay Rao who is known to the petitioner is what is narrated in the complaint.

Offering of `20,000/- bribe is what becomes the subject matter of complaint. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is a story that is cooked up for registration of the crime and there is no truth in the allegation. He would contend that even the summary of the charge sheet if noticed, does not contain any allegation against the petitioner, much less, the ingredients of offences so alleged.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the 2nd respondent would contend that the Police have already filed a charge sheet and therefore, further proceedings must be permitted to be continued as it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. The charge sheet clearly indicates that the amount that was offered was for the purpose of the petitioner. Both accused No.1 and the petitioner are cohorts in the crime. Therefore, she would contend that the Police after detailed investigation have come to the conclusion that there is substance in the complaint that is made by the complainant and as such the petition be dismissed.

6. Another proceeding was instituted by the 2nd respondent on the petitioner. The same had become subject matter in Crl.P.No.2547 of 2021. Both the petitions were heard together. Crl.P.No.2547 of 2021 came to be disposed on 16-06-2022, but pending decision in the subject petition, the same was not released for release of the order