1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8769/2015

BETWEEN:

Sri G.S. Shivaswamy,

S/o Shivarudraiah,

Aged about 47 years,

Residing at No.109,

43^rd Main Road, 9^th Cross,

Ideal Homes,

Rajarajeshwari Nagara,

Bangalore – 560 098.

…Petitioner

(By Sri M.S. Bhagwat, Advocate)

AND:

1. The State by Tavarekere Police Station,

Represented by its Inspector,

Tavarekere, Ramanagara,

Ramanagara – 571 511.

2. Sri B.K.Srinivas,

S/o Kote Rangaiah,

Aged about 51 years,

Harsh Mahal, Byadarahalli,

2

Yeshwanthapura Hobli,

Bangalore North Taluk,

Bangalore – 560 097.

…Respondents

(By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1,

Sri Rajashekhara Seeri, Advocate for

Sri S.Nagabhushana, Advocate for R2)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in Crime

No.86/2015 (Annexure-C) pending on the file of C.J.M.,

Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission

this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner has sought for quashing of the

proceedings in Crime No.86/2015 pending on the file of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District,

Bangalore. Respondent No.1- State by Tavarekere Police

has registered a case in Crime No.86/2015 on the

complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein dated

13.2.2015 for the offences under Sections 380, 420 and

406 of IPC.

3

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the respondent and after considering the

entire materials on record, this Court has to consider

whether the said proceedings in any way bad in law or

the said criminal case has been lodged maliciously in

order to harass the petitioner herein.

3. It is worth to refer here a decision of the Apex

Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in the case of

State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others,

wherein the Apex Court has laid down certain

guidelines as to under what circumstances the First

Information Report and further proceedings can be

quashed. The relevant guidelines are enumerated below;

i)

“Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

4

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused.

ii)

Where the allegations in the first information

report

and

other

materials,

if

any,

accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under Section 156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate

within the purview of Section 155(2) of the

Code.

iii)

Where the uncontroverted allegations made

in the FIR or complaint and the evidence

collected in support of the same do not

disclose the commission of any offence and

make out a case against the accused.

iv)

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

5

ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on

the accused and with a view to spite him due

to private and personal grudge.”

4. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued a cheque for a

sum of Rs.45,00,000/- in the year 2014 precisely on

20.11.2014 and notice was issued after dishonour of the

said cheque on 4.12.2014 and the same has been

replied by the respondent on 8.12.2014 making the

allegations that, the said cheque was subjected to theft.

After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has filed a

private complaint on 4.3.2015 under the provisions of

Negotiable Instruments Act before the Jurisdictional

Magistrate

i.e.

before

the

13^th

Additional

Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. After receipt of the

notice and after issuance of the reply, the respondent

No.2 has in fact lodged a complaint agains