IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.412 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Shri. R.Vijay Tata

Son of R.S.Murthy,

Aged about 53 years,

Residing No.479, HMT Layout,

Near R.T.Nagar Bus Depot,

R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-560032.

&Petitioner

(By Sri Ashwin Vaish, Advocate for

Sri Gautam S. Bharadwaj, Advocate)

AND:

1.

State of Karnataka

The Station House Officer,

Cotton Pet Police Station,

Bengaluru-560004

Represented by the Learned

Public Prosecutor

2.

Dr. Venkatesh Prasanna,

Son of Mr. M.V.Narashimha Murthy,

Aged about 50 years,

Residing at NO.181, 1^st Floor,

Vijaya Government Building,

K.G.Nagar Main Road,

Bengaluru-560018.

&Respondents

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1;

R2 3 served, unrepresented)

:: 2 ::

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings

pending

on

the

file

of

XLV

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru

in

P.C.R.No.294/2019

and

the

compliant

dated

18.12.2018 filed by the respondent No.2, marked as

annexure A and B respectively.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission

this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri Ashwin Vaish, Advocate for Sri

Gautam S Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent

No.2 has been served with notice, but he has not

appeared before this Court either in person or

through an Advocate.

2.

This is a petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C.,

for

quashing

the

private

complaint

registered as PCR No.294/2019 on the file of the

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru.

:: 3 ::

3.

The second respondent is the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, who was investigating into

a crime in FIR No.137/2018 of D.J.Halli police

station. The said FIR pertains to allegation of

money laundering and cheating a company called

8M/s Ambident Company Private Limited9, to the

tune

of

more

than

a

crore.

During

the

investigation, one of the accused, namely, Syed

Fareed Ahamed, made a confession before the

second respondent that in a TV channel, by

name

8Samaya

News

Channel9

owned

by

the

petitioner, a false news against the said company

was telecast, when he approached the petitioner

through his confidante in connection with this

telecast, the petitioner demanded Rs.2 crores in

order to hush-up the entire transaction and stop

telecasting. In the private complaint, it is alleged

that, when the second respondent summoned the

petitioner

to

come

to

police

station

for

interrogation, the petitioner said that he had

:: 4 ::

spoken to higher authorities and that he would not

come. When the second respondent asked the

petitioner again that his personal presence was

necessary, it is said that the petitioner again

raised his voice and refused to go to police station

and said that he had contacts with higher officers

and further said that he knew what he should do.

With

these

allegations,

he

approached

the

Magistrate with a private complaint for prosecuting

the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. The learned

Magistrate

passed

an

order

on

05.01.2019

referring

the

complaint

to

the

police

for

investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

submits that if the entire complaint is read, there

are no ingredients for taking action against the

petitioner

for

the

offences

punishable

under

Sections 353, 504 and 506 of IPC. The only

:: 5 ::

document

produced

along

with

the

private

complaint is the complaint said to have been given

by the second respondent to the police against the

petitioner. It also contains the same allegations

as made in the private complaint. Ther